quorum call:

mr. lankford: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president are we into quorum call in. the presiding officer: we are. mr. lankford: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lankford: i've come to wish a happy birthday message today. happy birthday to the fifth birthday to the dodd-frank

regulations. where are we as a nation with this wonderful five-year-old running around our nation now pushing that birthday cake across every bank and financial institution across this country. how is that going? let me get a chance to share things. everyone in this nation remembers extremely well 2008, the financial collapse that happened. lehman brothers closing down causing panic. fannie and freddie rules finally reaping what the nation assumed would happen at some point from all these very low rates and pushing out and encouraging people that can't afford to pay back a loan what would really occur. the rise of a conversation, something called too big to fail that we had never heard before suddenly grows up and we move as a nation in 2009 from trying to regulate financial institutions to actually running financial institutions. the regulations were considered too small and institutions that were big were determined that

big business means that big government needs to run it. mr. president, i have to say there's not a lot about the efficiency of washington d.c. that we would look cruise the fruity plains saying this is working so well in washington d.c., we should run every big company as well. in the days of government shutdowns in $18 trillion in debt and slow decision-making there's a great need for private businesses to be pushed to be able to do things efficiently to be able to manage our economy effectively. clearly there is a need for regulations, but i would also say clearly the united states government should not step into businesses and run them instead just regulate the boundaries. this is a free market but suddenly in 2009 the united states government goes to running general motors. we start running individual banks and insurance companies. we've got to be able to shift out of that, be able to find a way in the days ahead for that never to occur again. i would say multiple things about this. now five years into dodd-frank,

400 new rules in the process of being promulgated literally 12 12,500 pages of regulations that have now been spun out. 12,500 pages of regulation just dealing with 271 rule makings. so here's what we're up against: 271 rule-making deadlines passed. of those 271 rule-making deadlines, 192 of them have been met wl finalized rules and rules have been proposed that would meet 46 more. rules have not been proposed to be met in 33 passed rule-making requirements. of the 390 total rule making requirements 247 of them have been met with finalized rules and rules proposed to meet 60 more. what am i trying to say with that? there is a lot coming out of this and more still to come. i would challenge any person in this room and across america, if you happen to run your business

and as you started to run your business a government regulator walked in with 12,500 pages and said i need someone in your company to know all of these regulations, you would not respond with a smile and happy birthday to them. you'd respond with great frustration and say why are you walking into my company with 12,500 pages of new regulations? there are previous regulations stacked on top of that and say here's an additional stack of 12,500 pages that you need to know and follow. this is the fruit of the dodd-frank regulations. i would say that there are a lot of things that we need to discuss with this bill. let me just highlight a few of those. let's just get common agreement. can we all agree that the community banks the smallest banks across america most of them in rural communities did not cause the financial collapse of 2008? in fact, they didn't even contribute to the financial

collapse in 2008. the smallest community banks across the country are vital accesses to capital for farmers small businesses, main street folks and folks that just do deposits of their savings and checking accounts. these are small-community banks. more than 1,200 counties with a combined population of 16 million americans without those community banks they would be severely limited to any kind of access to banking. big banks tend to focus on the biggest loans and in big towns. small community and traditional banks, they focus on smaller communities. in my state in oklahoma, you go to every hometown and you're going to find a school, a gas station, a church and a bank. and often that bank is a very small community bank. they know everybody in town and everybody knows them. but the rules change for them after dodd-frank, and it wasn't because that bank caused anything.

regardless of the laws in any area -- and we can have a great conversation with a lot of the issues with dodd-frank -- financial reform was to contain systemic risk in the financial sector of very large companies which would called too big to fail, which i refer to often as the "too big to be free" because the federal government is stepping in to try to run all these companies and say you can't have a free market in that area. we're going to have to run you instead. these small-bank failures are not a threat to the economy. they weren't supposed to be a target of dodd-frank but they most certainly are. all of these banks now suffer the consequences. a study by the federal reserve bank of minneapolis found that for banks that have less than $15 million in assets hiring two additional personnel reduces the profitability by 45 bases points resulting in a third of these banks becoming unprofitable. why would i raise that? there are regulators that say hire one or two additional new compliance people and you can keep up with the 12,500

additional pages that have been rolled out. these small-community banks can't keep up with that. mercada surveyed 200 banks with less than $10 billion in assets. 83% found compliance costs increased and staff increased from one to two. they all had to add additional folks. not additional folks to make more loans. not additional folks to greet more customers as they walked through the doors. additional folks in the back office simply filling out forms and turning it in. government figures indicate that the country is losing on average one community bank or credit union a day now. alternatively in the last five years regulators have approved only one new bank as opposed to an average of 170 new banks per year before 2010. let me run that past you again. we've approved one new bank in the last five years since

dodd-frank. people don't want to go into banking. and this is having the effect that we all said that it would have. and that is when dodd-frank passes the focus on too big to fail would really mean that you're too small to succeed that the smallest banks in communities all across the country now cannot keep up with the compliance costs and they will sell out to larger and larger banks. and you know what dodd-frank has created? dodd-frank has created more megabanks. and it's pushing more and more smaller banks to sell out. since the end of the first quarter of 2010, oklahoma, my state, has seen 33 community banks disappear through acquisition or merger. 33 of those. 29 of those 33 community banks that disappeared were under $100 million in total assets. when asked the most frequent reason why they were selling, it was the increasing cost of compliance. they could not keep up because they had to have so many compliance people. in oklahoma, 24% of the state's

commercial banks no longer offer real estate mortgage loans it to their customers because of the litigation and regulatory rirvegz they face under the null ability to repay and qualified mortgage rules. let me run that past you again because a lot of people don't realize what's happening. the smallest community banks are selling out. they're disappearing. at the same time 24% of the banks in my state now no longer offer home loans. that means in these small towns across america you can't walk into the bank and get a home loan. you've got to drive into some other town or in some other place and to try to get a home loan now not because that bank can't do a home loan. they're a bank. that's what they do. it's because of new dodd-frank regulations that make them so scared to function and operate through the 12,500 pages they've just decided i don't have enough staff and enough people and my neighbor, that

community banker's neighbor that i sold them their home, and their dad their home and maybe their grandfather their home in this community, i can no longer do a mortgage for them any more. that's absurd. i would hope that no one would say that was the purpose of dodd-frank but i would tell you this five-year-old that's running around, that's the consequences. that's really happening all across our nation. these new rules continue to push out the possibility of just doing normal, traditional banking. savings accounts, checking accounts, home loans car loans. dodd-frank ironically favors the largest banks over community banks. and i find that the ultimate irony based on the way that it was sold. not to mention the fact that as a banker now, if you have a problem with one of the regulators and you want to appeal and say how are we going to actually get through this problem? you know who you appeal to now?

literally a person in the next cubicle from the previous person that gave you the instructions. there's another place they can go. there's another judicial review. there is no opportunity to say this regulation that you've given me is onerous or the decision that you made based on this regulation is onerous. you want to disagree? you disagree with the person in the next cubicle. and then that same group of people will come then and inspect your bank next year, and what do you think happens? i've got to tell you we're in a bad spot. this is not about big city bankers. this is about small towns. this is about small-town loans. this is about home loans for individuals p in rural areas. and these are real consequences to a lot of families. so how do we solve this now? this is what we have. have had for five years still continues to grow, still continues to get worse. what happens now? let me run some solutions mr. president. number one, i would say this, we've got to deal with one of

the big animals in the middle of the creation of dodd-frank and that is the consumer financial protection bureau. the cfpb was created to be like a fourth branch of government. it is completely autonomous. its funding comes from the federal reserve. it does not have to report to congress. none of its staff has to report to congress. no requirement for transparency. they only, in a cursory manner come by and visit congress every quarter and do a report but are not required to turn anything over. they have access to every piece of every bit of consumer finance. they're reaching in to do car loans. they're reaching into credit cards, they're reaching into home loans. they can reach in l in effect and create regulations in any area they choose to with no accountability. we have to be able to resolve this. not to mention the fact that cfpb is completely redundant to other agencies that already existed through this oversight that this adds yet another layer on every bank and on every consumer financial institution. but they're unaccountable. so let's do a couple of basic

things. one is one of the promotes that came -- proposals that came today out of the appropriations committee, move them from a director to a five-member board so that we don't have one person managing all consumer finance for the entire country and one person who is completely unaccountable. separating them separating them out from appropriations so they -- rather than getting their appropriations directly from the federal reserve so they're like every other agency including independent agencies. there's no reason to have them isolated and be separate. quite, frankly, you cfpb is redundant to all other areas there's 0 no reason for them to have redundant activities and authority. those should be cleared as well no make sure every bank when they're making a decision they can make a decision based on they know who their regulator is. not to think this regulator will say one thing but what is the cfpb going to say next. not to think a regulator this is not our regulation but the cfpb has put this regulation

down so we're going to follow theirs as well. that's absurd. clear lines of authorities and responsibilities should be delineated. we can do this. it shouldn't be hard and it shouldn't even be controversial. second thing. we need to reform fannie and freddie. community banks did not cause the problems in 2008. frankly, fannie and freddie did. community banks have this major bushdown on 12,500 pages of regulations. guess how much reform has happened to fannie and freddie. zero. so the organization that actually was the problem has gotten off scot free because now they're making money again and everyone is looking the other way to say they're doing okay, we'll leave them alone and the organization that didn't cause the problem has faced tons of regulations. there are major reforms that need to happen with fannie and freddie. it's about time this congress actually engages and stops saying you know what, they're in the black let's leave them

alone. did you realize mr. president the government funds 71% of new mortgages now through the g.s.e.'s and the federal housing organization compared to 31% just ten years ago. let me run that past you again. ten years ago the federal taxpayer backed 32% of the loans. now it's 71%. dodd-frank was supposed to be about about trying to get the too big to fail issue out and the federal taxpayer out of having to back up every loan and business. instead it's increasing the size of banks and the exposure of the federal taxpayer to every mortgage in america. we got to turn that around. number three congress has to provide the authority for federal banking regulators to differentiate the applicability of rules and regulations to various banks based on the banks' operating model and risk

profile. if it's a transitional bank, leave them alone. they're a transitional community bank -- traditional community bank. tom mahoney had a great set of ideas i would bring to this body and we should seriously consider. that's to separate banks not based on size but on activity. if they're a traditional bank doing traditional banking things that would mean a couple of things. at least 10% capitalization. the second, they're not involved in complicated derivatives. if they are are they have heavy oversight. if they're well capitalized. they're about safety and soundness. if this bank is well cappized and not involved in derivatives, why are we involved in every aspect of this bank? allow them to be a traditional bank. i don't care how big they're grow if they're in traditional banking million dollars. we have banks banks around the country that are around

$10 billion in size that can't get any bigger. businesses taking saying i can't grow because if i grow i spring into a whole new set of regulations i can't afford more staff to actually do that. this is silly. if it's a traditional bank and they're in good safety and soundness, let them do loans. let them actually engage with their customers in their community and not have to look over their shoulders all the time. chairman shelby has laid out the financial regulatory improvement act. it's a great place to start. a lot of commonsense ideas and bipartisan ideas he's been able to stack together and put in one piece. it's a good idea to be able to help provide regulatory relief in these areas. i think it's a fair question to say are we financially better off as a nation now than we were five years ago. now that this five-year-old toddler is walking around called dodd-frank what's happened? there are some banks better

capitalized. that's a good thing. but frankly we could increase capital requirements without going through 12,500 pages of regulations. we have made it harder to get a loan police department unless it's a government loan. like a small business administration loan. and we've literally pushed the loan profile out of private institutions into fannie and freddie, into f.h.a., into the small business administration and now we have record exposure to the federal taxpayer. we've also made fees higher for the banks as they're more and more challenged to know what to do and we have half as many banks offering free checking as we had just five years ago. that's a consequence the consumer understands and a consequence of dodd-frank. we have fewer banks we have bigger banks and we have a lot more complication. and in a day when america needs more capital access, we have one bank in five years that says

i want to join that market. mr. president, i wish i could say happy birthday to dodd-frank but i'm not sure this set of financial regulations are making a lot of americans happy right now. and it is time we come back and revisit this bill. with that i yield back. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent my intern lease smith be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you very much. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call in progress shall vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president i think anytime now -- hopefully in the next hour, maybe the next half-hour -- it appears that we're going to be bringing up the vote to proceed like we did yesterday, and let me just repeat what i did just a couple hours ago here on the floor. i'm not critical at all of the democrats who voted against the motion to proceed yesterday based on the fact that we dropped the ball over here. we were supposed to give them the information necessary on

some of the funding mechanisms, some things on the offsets and we didn't do it until about 30 minutes, maybe 15 minutes before the vote took place sms. you can't go over several hundred pages in a if you minutes. now -- in a few minutes. now it's been several hours. even my counterpart on the democratic side, senator boxer she voted against it for the same reason. and they were rievment so, anyway i feel optimistic that when we have this bill, we can proceed to this. let's keep in mind, this is a bill i perceive as a must-pass bill. the alternative to this would be very very expensive. it would go back to what we had to suffer through since -- between 2009 and this moment that we're in right now and that is a list of 33 short-term extensions. short-term extensions, as we all know cost about -- about 30%

off the top and consequently, we need to be spending that money on roads and bridges not on short-term extensions. so i look forward to getting that passed. and as soon as that happens that's when we're going to pull the trigger to get as many people down here with amendments. i keep hearing about all the amendments that are out there that different members want to come forth w the and, you know, the criticism that we've had we've had with the democrats when they were in charge is that they were not able to get amendments. well we've changed that. ever since we've been in control, we have allowed amendments and i know we have a lot of them, some germane some not germane. but it is going to be an open amendment process. well until we get this thing forward, to move forward and pass the next vote, which i think it will pass, then we're not going to be in a position to really go over the amendments,

see which amendments we can agree to, and there will be a lot of them that we can. i want to mention one thing. a lot of the most confusing things is, a lot of people are saying, this is what we've done before. that is six-year bill. we're authoritying authorizing it for six years. there is a reason for that. you can go ahead and fund something for half the length as we did in this case, but there's something unique about our system that allows us to go ahead and authorize for a longer period of time. then if for some reason funding doesn't exist doesn't come forward, it'll all stop. and i'm going to explain that. our bill authorizes six years of something that we call "contract authority. ""which is a mechanism uenact to the highway bill in which the federal government makes funding commitments of future funding over multiple years. the use of contract authority was created way back when the -- in eisenhower's 1956 highway act

for a reason that exists still today. it's been the cornerstone of highway bills ever since then, giving states and cities long-term certainty to plan their investments over multiple years. the reason that's important -- i used to be in that business many years ago as a contractor, and for several years and you know you can't have short-term ideas without going back and making years of planning so that you can organize your labor supply, you can organize all of your rentals everything that would go into a project. and so that's why this is so important. now, this has been in existence for a long period of time. as states begin to break ground on projects, they match this contract authority with actual cash and are reimbursed from the highway trust fund. so it comes from the highway trust fund, converts to cash,

goes into contract authority. unfortunately, up until 2009, the end of safety -- that's what went in in in 2005. it lasted until the end of 2009. the contract authority was always guaranteed by the receipts in the highway trust fund but we now find ourselves in a situation where the highway trust fund can no longer support current levels he have spending as a result of more efficient and electric vehicles. with all of the effort to try to get away from fossil fuels and the thifng that we're things that we're getting out of this administration. we have vehicles using our highways but not paying because they only -- the highway trust fund is only made up of a gas tax. so that's -- the electrical vehicles don't have that. i have included a mechanism in this bill that would that will allow congress to authorize a six-year highway bill consistent with all states and locals plan and deliver their projects and

then find the necessary offsets to pay the bill. currently senator hatch is identifying at least three years of cuts to the general fund to redirect -- to the highway trust fund and shore up the differences between what the highway trust fund can support and the drive act levels of investment. let's keep in mind, to keep the current level of spending, if you take all of the money history of a six-year period that comes in from the highway trust fund from the gas tax it still falls short by $15 billion a year times six years about $90 billion. so that's what we're talking about now. so the first three years the states would have a guarantee of at least three years of funding so that they could be confident and be reimbursed on their contract authority. in the fourth fiscal year of the act, the secretary will conduct a solvency test to determine the ability to make payments out of the highway trust fund for the remaining three years. the keep in mind, this is a six-year bill.

so the remaining six years of contract authority would be given to the states. if the secretary determines that the balance of either account would dip below $4 billion in a fiscal year for the highway account or $1 billion for the mass transit account then no new projects can be funded from the highway trust fund during that year. so there it is. and it's -- it is a guarantee that while we may be authorizing six years and only paying for three years that if we don't come up with the funding then it will stop. now, the pressure will be on. about the time we start building roads and repairing bridges there's going to be a huge public pressure to go ahead and complete t it. now, if congress finds funds to supplement the trust fund during that fiscal year -- talking about the fourth year -- new projects may begin and be funded as planned in the drive act. however, it's important to point out that even if the secretary

finds that the trust fund is not able to fund new projects in a fiscal year, during that year the department can continue to reimburse states for projects that were already under way prior to the end of year three. this will ensure that there is not a huge cliff at the end of three years which d.o.t., departments of transportation and governors and mayors and the rest of them tell us will prevent a chilling effect on their willingness to use the first three years of funding to engage in large multiyear bridge and interstate reconstruction projects. that's another reason, by the way, that we want to use -- that we want to do a six-year bill, is that that allows us to get into these all these bridges and these very large -- put up the chart on the number of bridges, the first one. this shows the deficient bridges

in america. and i talked this morning about 25 of these i guess. i gave a lot of details which i'm going to do again because we need to get the attention of the members of the senate because they will be very familiar with the problems they have as you would be familiar in south. each member is familiar with the bridges and geography in his own district. it means congress has three years to identify about $58 billion to $68 billion additional receipts into the trust fund to honor years four, five and six of contract authority. under this mechanism the trust fund will continue to receive user fee revenues for all six years of the act plus two years after the act has been holily and in -- historically in this big highway bills. the mechanism is nothing new as it is similar to the army chief's reports on wrrda bills. that's the water resources

development act bills which they authorize five to ten years of project authorizations and then congress finds the money on an annual basis to match the authority, the same as the highway bill. if they can't find the money construction doesn't start. allowing for multiyear planning is a conservative position because it allows states to engage in long-term contracts and negotiate bigger projects at significantly lower cost buy materials in bulk. contractors charge less than -- and finish early. what i'd like to do, at some point i'm going to talk about the transparency and also the transportation program. this is an exhaustive bill. there's a lot to talk about here. in fact, i think i'll go over the -- the transparency first. because we hear a lot about

transparency. we hear l a lot about the things people need to be aware of. the public needs to be aware -- you've got to keep in mind this and the defense authorization bill are the most significant and two largest bills that are out there. if you read that old contract that nobody reads anymore -- it's called the constitution. it tickles me sometimes when i see the liberals standing up here wanting to get government into more and more programs when the constitution says we're only supposed to be doing two things here: defending america and roads and bridges. that's in article 1 section 8 of the constitution. anyway i just want to mention increasing the accountability, improving transparency of the federal aid highway program is a key component to the drive act i'm talking about the act that we'll be moving to proceed in hopefully just a few minutes.

it includes provisions to improve how transportation projects are selected and funded to ensure that stakeholders and the public have faith in the integrity of highway programs and the use of federal tax dollars. so they're going to know, if they care -- and a lot of them don't -- but the ones who do care the ones who are watching from a fiscal perspective are going to have that information they can share the media can have it. you can see articles. i often criticize this administration for their lack of transparency, but you're not going to find any lack of transparency in the drive act. the drive act requires the transportation secretary to establish an online platform to report project-level status of the reviews and the approvals permits required for compliance with the national environment environmental policy act -- that's nepa -- and other federal laws. this will allow the public to see the status of an ongoing

project or to see what is holding up the project. that's very significant. by the way it's important to note that on the nepa requirements, there are some waivers. and i applaud some of the more liberal members of the committee that i chair including senator barbara boxer, who was -- she didn't want to go along with a lot of the provisions to streamline it this bill but was willing to do it. so i applaud her in doing it. what this will do is let the public also have access to that to make sure that we are doing what we should be doing. in the nepa requirements we can see if we're deef vaiting from that -- deviating from that or any of the other requirements that make the drive act something that is going to be the second-most valuable piece of legislation passed this year. the drive act also increased transparency regarding the way in which the federal highway administration utilizes federal aid, highway l funding for administrative expenses. this is accomplished by

requiring the federal highway administration to report elemental project-level data each fiscal year. so each year they can have access to that. the drive act requires that the transportation secretary publish all reports submitted to congress by the department in order to increase transparency and oversight by congress and by the public. these improved transparency -- i have to say this. one of the reasons that i believe there's a lot of support for this bill is because thermd the last long-term -- they remembered the last long-term bill they had was in 2005. in 2005 we said we were going to do it and we did exactly that. we had the transparency, so people would have access to everything that's going on anywhere in the -- in america. these improved transparency provisions will provide to the public better accountability of how the federal highway administration is utilizing its funds. it will also demonstrate how the

agency is making progress towards achieving national goals and improving federal reviews and highway projects. we've got the transparency built in. that was one of the requirements that we on the conservative side demanded when we put this bill together. let me do this, since we have these charts here. and i apologize to those who had to sit through this a couple of hours ago. but we have a whole different crowd out there now and we have our members who are many of them paying attention to what we're doing since they're going to be called upon to vote in just a matter of a few minutes. the bridges -- this chart shows the dark colors are the ones that have the majority of the structurally deficient bridges. it's on there by county. i call my attention anyway to oklahoma because a quarter of our state is in that high

category of deficiency. if you look to other states, i was talking just a few minutes ago to senator blunt from missouri. he was talking about their deficient bridges. and i commented that we actually have more deficient bridges although his are more bridges that are smaller. so we're kind of in a comparable situation. it gives you an idea of how widespread this is. let's kind of go over some of these bridges in my home state of oklahoma, in just one of the congressional districts, we have two of the top worst districts by number of deficient bridges. frank lucas is a congressman from oklahoma. he's -- he came out from being the chairman of the ag committee over in the house of representatives. in his district alone there are over 2,000 deficient bridges. he has a lot of small bridges because he has the rural areas of oklahoma where there aren't many people but there's a lot of land.

certainly we have the problem. congressman mark wayne mullins district there are over 1,000 deficient bridge. in oklahoma the department of transportation is working to address bridge safety but they need the long-term provisions in here to take care of that particular problem. a bridge collapse or closure brings significant and sudden economic impacts. i think you all remember in minnesota, it was not long ago a couple of years ago i guess it was -- no, it was 2007, i guess that in minnesota the bridge came down. it was very graphic. it was on all the tv channels of the damage that was done, the people the injuries, the deaths. people are very much concerned about that. we -- is this the one? is this the one in minnesota? okay, this is minnesota. it was called the i-35 west bridge collapse of 2007. just look at that.

you can see that that's a death trap. that's exactly what happened. the skagit river bridge collapsed, i-5 in washington state had similar effects on the local economy with an estimated gact of $-- impact of $8.3 million during the 26-day closure. the spence bridge, this is a big one that goes between ohio and kentucky. it is one that carries a huge amount of traffic. you can see by looking at it how old this bridge is and how structurally deficient the bridge is. you visibly -- you can visibly see that. now, our members there in ohio sherrod brown and rob portman in kentucky rand paul and mitch mcconnell, they're very familiar with this. and i think this really brings it home to show these bridges to the public because they have to live with them on a daily basis.

this is functional obsolete, this bridge is. it was built in 1963. the bridge is more than 50 years old. it was designed to carry 85,000 cars a day. but by 2025 it's expected to carry 200,000 cars a day. according to the american transportation research institute, the spence bridge is the fourth most congested truck point on the united states infrastructure grid. the cost in congestion is staggering when you consider the $420 billion of freight that crosses the bridge every year. freight haulers bear the brunt of the congestion costs delays associated with just traveling across the bridge costs a trucker almost $40 during a rush hour. in the aggregate the delays on the bridge cost travelers over $750 million a year in wasted time and fuel. you have to keep an even mind.

if you have congestion on bridges, cars stop, trucks stop and they pollute the air. their exhaust continues to go. their engines are still running. the efficiency of their vehicle goes down and it's a very expensive thing. each year 1.6 million gallons of fuel are wasted due to congestion on this one bridge. 3.6 million hours are spent in traffic on the bridge each year. this is one bridge. in 2011 chunks of concrete fell from the upper deck down to the lower deck of the bridge. what's most a large is motorists who use this bridge are five times more likely to get into an accident on this segment of the interstate than any other part of the interstate in kentucky. they're going to see some bridges where they've actually gone through and built another bridge under the bridge to catch the falling debris, the falling concrete. this is the mobile river bridge in alabama.

certainly senator sessions and senator shelby are very sensitive to this. it's a bridge that has been a problem for quite some time. the -- it was constructed in the 1970's or the tunnel was to offer some relief from the bridge. currently traffic is carried through, called the george c. wallace tunnel and i-10 crossing under this bridge that you're looking at in alabama. and that tunnel was designed with an anticipated daily traffic count of 36,000. currently the tunnel averages approximately 80,000 vehicles a day. it can reach as much as 100,000 vehicles in peak season. the traffic volume causes heavy congestion and longer travel times for commercial and noncommercial drivers throughout the region and the rest of the nation. the -- this right here, this is what it will look like after the improvements are made. and this is what is today.

i was asking if we had the pennsylvania chart and we don't because the occupier of the chair would certainly be interested in that, i would think. arlington memorial bridge, we're all familiar with that around here. that connects washington d.c. with virginia. senator warner and senator kaine travel this bridge probably on a daily basis. this was built in 1932. the arlington memorial bridge is well beyond its designed life and structurally deficient. the bridge serves as a significant part of the national highway system, a major evacuation route evacuation for the nation's capital and carries more than 68,000 vehicles each day and almost all the time it's crowded with congestion. at least it is every day that i'm going across it. my staff tells me this bridge is on the local news on a regular

basis due to the deterioration that is taking place. the government has had to conduct emergency lane closures. repair work will take six to nine l months. then we have the bridge that is the i-264 bridge over lynn haven parkway that carries traffic to virginia beach just down to the south of where we are right now. structurally deficient you see the chart one of the ten most heavily traveled bridges in the state of virginia, carries just under 134,000 cars a day. the next one is in the state of washington. i always comment when i see this called the magnolia bridge it's too far north for magnolia trees, i don't know why it's called that. built 1929, it's structurally deficient and while the bridge is in a residential area on the

community's radar it hasn't received the necessary funding to reconstruct the 86-year-old bridge. greenfield bridge, pittsburgh, pennsylvania. i imagine the chair is familiar with this. pennsylvania has the most structurally deficient bridges in the country. this is one of them. let me repeat that. the state of pennsylvania has the most structurally deficient bridges in the entire nation. this was built in 1921. it now carries 7,700 cars a day, a 10-inch chunk of concrete went through a car windshield in 2003 injuring the driver. later that year the city spent $652,000 to built a contrary bridge to catch cavalier came through. so we have a bridge and bridge. they had to build another bridge to catch what falls off of this bridge. the bridge has been crumbling for decades and in order to protect drivers on the busy

highway below nets and a platform were construct constructed to catch falling debris. this is a bridge that was deficient prior to the 2005 transportation reauthorization bill. a lady and three children in a car were driving blow it and a chunk of concrete fell off and it killed the mother. anyway the federal funding will pay 80% of this. we go back and repeat what he said. pennsylvania has the most be structurally deficient bridges in the entire nation and that was just one of them. is this des moines here? yeah. the court avenue bridge in des moines. it's where i was born. and this -- you talk about an old bridge, this was built before i was born. in 1918. and now carries 3,900 cars a day. iowa has the second most

structurally deficient bridges in the country second only to pennsylvania. and while the state recently increased the gas tax it will still require a federal partnership to do something about this, a famous bridge. the i-95 -- i-95 when you go from washington to new york or anyplace up north in the northeast, you go on i-95. it's a very heavily traveled highway. and this is the brandywine bridge in wilmington. you go right over this bridge when you're on i-95. it's 50 years old the bridge deck is deteriorating. the viaduct which carries travelers through wilmington has serious concrete erosion. the problem is this bridge was designed for a fraction of the traffic that it now has because this is a main artery going up the east coast of the united states.

it has cracks and i've personally seen this, this bridge. the chef meteur bridge in louisiana, it's in lass. i'm sure score cassidy and vitter are concerned about this. it was built in 1930, carries 1800 cars a day across ohio 90 -- highway 90. says are a chavez bridge in san francisco, built in 1951, carries 200,000 cars a day, one of the oldest bridges on the west coast. i-30 in little rock close to my state of oklahoma. the tom cotton and john boozman are most interested in this bridge. this is structurally deficient built in 1961 to carry traffic over railroad tracks. 116,000 cars a day.

arkansas is delaying promise because of uncertainty at the federal level. certainly a gap in financing for the i-30 project. the storrow bridge in boston. senators warren and, warren and markey are concerned about this. carries 657,000 cars a day. the storrow drive bridge earned the deficient rating because of corroding support beams that support one of many highly trafficked bridges in the nation. the cost of interim repairs have kept the artery open but they're just stopgaps until a solution can be reached. in new jersey, the u.s. highway 1 over the passaic river. herbert hoover was president when this bridge was built in

1932 with an estimated design value of 5,500 vehicles a day. i want to skip down now to the brooklyn bridge. see if you got the brooklyn bridge there. this bridge was actually built in 1883. now, it is a structurally deficient, of course, you know the number of cars that go over that but that's 1883. that's one that is -- that's -- i dare say hardly anyone here who hasn't driven over that and every time you do you wonder if you're going to get out the other side. the other one that's comparable is the san francisco the bay bridge which was built in 1936 the bridge is functionally obsolete. the concern about the bridge, they say and a lot of smart people are saying this bridge

because of all the earthquakes out there could collapse. i've gone over it, and anyone who drives over it is driving over it thinking is this going to be the time when that takes place. because of the propensity of all those. anyway i talked a few minutes ago to roy blunt he was talking about the bridges in missouri the last one i'll show you i think you have right there the next chart because for some reason, missouri and oklahoma are two of the worst states in terms of the conditions of bridges and we are both concerned about that. so anyway, we are that's something that people have to keep in mind and i'm going to go ahead and i know others want to come down and get some time, but we're going to be talking about these. we're going to be talking about the major projects, the thing about bridges you can't do bridges on short-term extensions. that's why we've gone since 2009 with 33 short-term extensions and none of these bridges have

had any attention. and the only way we're going to correct that problem is to do it with this -- the drive act. just another reminder, just a matter of minutes hopefully we'll have the vote to advance that bill and hopefully be able to get it through. i want to repeat what i started off with, that is, i don't criticize the democrats who were -- voted against the motion to proceed yesterday because they didn't -- they requested information they didn't get the information until 30 minutes before the vote took place. so even my counterpart on the left barbara boxer voted against it at that time. so i think most of those individuals should be supporting this certainly after seeing the bridges and the construction that's necessary in their states i'm confident that we will. with that i will cede the floor

and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask that the quorum call be redounded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president throughout the history of the republic certain decisive moments have fundamentally altered the national security. of the united states.

for good or ill these moments define time and the course of history. these include president roosevelt's decision to person america into an arsenal of democracy to defeat fascism president truman's strategy to rebuild europe, president nixon's decision to reopen relations with china. other such moments reflect serious errors in judgment, mistakes that continue to echo today. one recent example is president obama's decision to remove u.s. forces from iraq previously. this shortsighted move squandered the gains of the surge and plunged iraq into chaos. leading to the rise of the islamic state. another especially instructive example is the clinton administration's fumbled attempt

to block north korea's development of nuclear weapons. back then i came out strongly against the agreed framework with north korea. sure enough, that naive diplomatic effort created barely a speed bump at the fanatical regime raced ahead in building a nuclear arsenal. mr. president, president obama's nuclear deal is clearly one such landmark moment in america's foreign policy but the question remains, is it a crowning achievement of american diplomacy or a grave mistake that we will all come to regret dearly? i think we've got to find out. since the president's april national endowment of the agreement i have endeavored to examine it carefully and thoroughly and look forward to the review process led by the chairman of the foreign relations committee who has promised a fair and full scrutiny of this particular deal. nevertheless my initial review has raised serious questions about whether this agreement forehe closes the pathway to a nuclear weapon. if left unanswered, these

concerns lead me to believe that this agreement can end up being a catastrophic mistake. time and again the obama administration's promise that this agreement will add stability to the region, however, the details lead me to believe that the deal will, in fact seriously destabilize the region. if the deal is implemented, $150 billion in iranian assets that are currently frozen in the world's financial institutions will be once again made available to the regime, which is a prime benefactor of terrorist groups such as hamas and hezbollah. these terrorist groups continually threaten one of our closest allies. of course that's israel. the fact that much of this money will be used to promote international terrorism is not even disputed by the obama administration. just this past weekend president obama's national security advisor susan rice, stated -- quote -- "we should expect that some portion of that

money would go to the iranian military and could potentially be used for the kinds of bad behavior that we've seen in the region up until now." now, while i am troubled that the administration now uses a team like "bad behavior" to describe international terrorism mrs. rice is -- miss rice is undoubtedly right about where this money will go. michael rubin of the american enterprise institute points out what happened when the european union previously opened trade with iran as an incentive forte ran to -- for tehran to moderate its behavior. iran's response was to take -- quote -- "that hard currency windfall and put it disproportionately into its covert nuclear and ballistic missile programs." as such, by implementing the agreement this agreement the united states will permit the financing of international terrorism not only against americans but also our closest allies including israel.

but funding terrorism is just for starters. this agreement also removes the conventional arms embargo against iran after five years. reportedly, the russians were particularly intent upon this clause. they stand to benefit if the iranians spend some of their $150 billion windfall to buy russian arms. in fact, russia has already committed to sell them its highly sophisticated s-300 surface-to-air missile system. this highly capable weapons system could protect iran's nuclear sites if the -- if the regime violates the agreement. moreover this agreement also lifts the ballistic missile embargo against iran after eight years. this is an incredibly troubling development. mr. president, my examination of the deal also brings into question whether the administration achieved our primary objective -- that is,

preventing iran from producing enough fissile material to build a nuclear weapon. for years the iranians have stockpiled advanced centrifuges to produce this material. yet this deal does not force them to part with this critical equipment. in fact, after eight years under this agreement the iranians will be able to begin building and stockpiling more than 200 advanced centrifuges a year. moreover the means to deploy a nuclear device were not fully addressed by this deal. the agreement mentions that iran will not pursue activities that could contribute to the design and development of a nuclear explosive device but it fails to detail most of the specific tools, equipment materials and components that are necessary to manufacture and fabricate a nuclear explosive device. mr. president, this is not a done deal. weeks ago 98 senators voted for

the iran nuclear agreement review act. while far from perfect this bipartisan legislation gave congress a vital say in whether this iran deal goes forward. let us not waste this opportunity. those who served before us did not shirk their responsibility to weigh in on the serious foreign policy decisions of their day. i urge all of my colleagues in this great body to stand with me in examining this agreement with great caution about its implications for the security of the united states and our allies in the region. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. a senator: mr. president i ask the proceedings under the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that a member of my staff erica sensenbrenner, be given the privileges of the floor for the duration of today's session. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: thank you mr. president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: and mr. president i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: the senate is in morning business. mr. brown: okay. thank you mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to -- that i will be joined -- to be joined in a colloquy with senator merkley of oregon and senator coons of delaware. the presiding officer: without objection. broinmr. brown: thank you, mr. president. during the financial crisis, $13 trillion -- $13,000 billion in household wealth was erased, 9 million jobs lost, 5 million americans, 5 million families, individuals, lost their homes. the financial services industry has bounced back. far too many american families have not. while many in washington may have forgotten the financial crisis millions of americans haven't forgotten how predatory lending practices contributed to

the housing bubble, helped spark this crisis. for them, this was the crisis. unscrupulous lenders offered loans that required no documentation, loans with teeser interest rates that later spiked undermined a borrower's ability to pay and loans where borrowers never paid down their principal. borrowers with these higher-cost loans were foreclosed upon and almost triple -- at almost triple the rate than borrowers are conforming 30-year fixed-rate mortgages. the crisis revealed a host of other harmful practices steering borrowers to affiliated companies, kickbacks for business referrals inflated appraisals. loan officer compensation based on the loan product which they peddled. these practices offered little benefit to the borrower. they were not about helping those families. they were not about helping those families purchase a home they could afford. it is no coincidence that as borrowers' costs increased so did loan officers' compensation.

these abuses didn't just start in 2007 hispanic 2008. in many communities predatory lenders began moving in a decade before the crisis. in ohio, the housing crisis was a slow burn rather than the boom-and-bust cycle that happened in states like california and arizona. 0 from 1995 to 2009 -- think about this -- my state of ohio had 14 consecutive years where there were more foreclosures than the year before. 14 years in a row foreclose -- the number of foreclosures went up and up and up. 14 years in a row. my wife and i live in slavic village, zip code 44105. i mention that zip code because in 2007, that skip code had the highest foreclosure rate than any in america. this was a de-:ing industrial base and this was the kind of predatory lending that tended to

settle and sink its talons into the community. it caused steel mills across northeast ohio and the rest of the country to shut down and forced people to look elsewhere for work. between 25000 and 2010, the population in slavic village dropped 257% down to 20,000 people and then the sub-prime lending industry moved in. by 2006, more than 900 of the slavic village's 3,000 properties 900 out of 3,000 were in foreclosure. if the home next door to you is foreclosed on and abandoned, you can bet the value of your home begins to decline 2%, 3%, 4%. then one down the street, then one across the street. and you can see what happens in this neighborhood. one in threep ohioans -- three ohioans in the height of the crisis in 2009, one in three ohioans with mortgages was under water meaning their homes were worth less than the amount they

owed. one in every seven mortgage holders was 30 days delinquent or in foreclosures. behind every foreclosed was a paid-for compensation. we don't think much about that here. we think of numbers policies and statistics. but imagine you're a mother or father, you have a 12- and 13-year-old son and daughter, first the mother loses her job. things change around the house. you begin to cut back on things, maybe take money out of the college fund to send your child to cuyahoga community college. then the husband loses his job. then you have to have that discussion. five million of these discussions at least went on in these five million hoaments where there -- homes where there are foreclosures. you have to explain we're not going to be living here. you'll have to go to a different school. we don't know where we're moving. you'll have to find a different place to live. maybe you'll have to give away the family pet. there's a shelter in parma

ohio that went from 200 to 2,000 dogs, dogs and cats that they were housing because so many people gave up their pets because of the foreclosures that so many meams endured. -- families endured. we came together as a result to pass wall street reforms so families would no longer be forced to up end their lives. dodd-frank established a commonsense rule it to require that lenders be able to repay their homes. we created a bureau to make sure that never again would consumers be an afterthought. much of the cfpb's important work centered on mortgage regulation. the rule of streamlined forms will help consumers understand what's happening at the closing table. the ability to pay qualified mortgage rule balances the need for mortgage credit with the need for documentation of income and other borrower protections. we know there's more to be done. we must ensure that small lenders in community

institutions remain competitive. we must provide homeowners with protections from a broken servicing model that has harmed so many of our communities. we must ensure broad access to affordable housing. the right to do for families and for communities. we must move forward. we know there will be a clear choice. we can accept as we move forward, we know that there are two paths to follow. we can accept the false narrative that inaccurately blames low-income borrowers and the federal programs -- f.h.a., v.a. to maintain their underwriting standards during the boom. in other words, we can blame the victim. we can say it was the homeowners that caused this. it was the people that got the mortgage. it's all their fault that they weren't smart enough and so irresponsible and we can blame the government because it's always the government's fault. or we can recognize there were flawed incentives encouraged by a lack of regulatory oversight at the heart of the nation's financial system. flawed incentives that made risk

taking more profitable, flawed inis en tifers that made loan -- inis en tifers that made loan officers he compensate increasingly when they made loans they shouldn't be making. we can maintain the 30-year fixed rate mortgage that made homeownership so affordable and given so many families an asset upon retiring. we can preserve a strong mortgage role in the mortgage department. instead too many in this body want to undermine the rereforms we put in place five years ago. republicans and their allies in the financial industry thought -- they be fought on -- they fought on behalf wall street reform every step of the way, attacking these consumer protections since the day they began. we have to remember what a top financial services lobbyist said five years ago yesterday. the day the president of the united states signed dodd-frank, the lobbyist for the the top lobbyist for the financial services industry said well, folks, today is half time. today is half time, meaning okay we lost in congress but we're going to keep pushing

these agencies. we're going to keep lobbying congress. we're going to keep trying to roll back these rules. we're going to stop these rules. we're going to dilute these rules and make them ineffective. the bill my republican colleagues today on the appropriations committee -- senator coons -- will talk about that the bill that the republicans brought under senator merkley's and my bampging committee isn't a narrow reform. it's a sweeping overhaul that rolls back wall street reform. once again they want to undermine consumer protection. they want to use small main street institutions as cover. but in the end they want to allow special interests and their allies to undermine reform and leave the american people exposed to the problems that happened less than a decadable. it is uncon nabl that this abuse quas ever allowed in the first place. snowe -- senator merkley will speak about his efforts what he's seen in the past and

looking forward to the future about what we do about predatory loans and people preying banks preying on consumers. mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: thank you mr. president, i so much appreciate the leadership of my colleague from ohio who has brought such a focus on ending predatory activities, helping our financial system work for working americans. and indeed that is certainly what all of our effort is about. here on the fifth anniversary of the wall street reform bill,ed dodd-frank bill. my colleague was talking about the humble home mortgage which was turned into a predatory instrument that instead of building the wealth of the middle class of america was designed to strip that wealth. two year teaser rates in which interest rates would go from 4% to 9%, more than doubling.

liar loan underwriting in which loans way too large for a family were given to a family just to reap the immediate benefits on the behalf of the mortgage broker the immediate commissions. and indeed steering payments, kickbacks that were paid to mortgage originators to steer their clients the humble homeowner, from the prime loan that they qualified in into the subprime loan. now thankfully, as the senator from ohio outlined, we've ended those predatory practices and we must not let those practices return. homeownership has been the foundation for middle class wealth. homeownership, education and good-paying jobs. we cannot take away homeownership as a significant part of the american dream the dream to control your own space be king of your, or queen of

your castle and certainly to build the equity that puts your family on a strong financial foundation. but wall street added to this particular story because they took these predatory teaser rate loans and put them into securities. you can think of securities as a box full of mortgages and those mortgages generate a certain cash flow. you sell the cash flow. that's what a security is. so the securities were only as strong as the mortgages that were in the security box and those mortgages were deeply flawed because when the interest rate went from 4% to 9%, a family's payments doubled. they weren't able to make their payments because the underwriting had been inappropriate from the beginning. and they weren't able to get out of the loan because there was a prepayment penalty if you tried to get out of the loan and that was the steel trap that locked families in to these inflated

interest rates and eventually destroyed the finances of the family. we've p ended all that. but think about what wall street did. they took these mortgages and set up a securities waterfall triple-a double-a and so forth. but they got ratings on these securities as if these home loans were the same sound good home loans of the past, not these new steering payment prepayment penalty teaser rate loans that had been started to become so common and such a different instrument. and so wall street said this will be, we'll make a lot of money off selling these securities. and indeed there were a couple other factors that came to play. not only did credit agencies give them great ratings despite the underlying flaws but there

was also insurance that could be bought to protect the security in case it would fail. it was called a credit default swap or c.d.s. and for a few cents you could buy insurance to make sure that security was good. now, of course, insurance is only as strong as the insurance company behind it. and the purchasers didn't know the details of that because it went through the middle men in wall street. it turned out that a.i.g., american insurance group was issuing this insurance in vast quantities not doing what an insurance company normally does, setting aside for potential losses. they were on a short-term, upward hey we can sell these insurance policies called c.d.s. for a ton of money. short-term profits long-term irresponsibility. and so let's fast forward from 2003 when these predatory loans

came into popularity, and now we're in 2008, and the mortgages are starting to fail, and the securities are starting to fail. and then of course the insurance on those securities fails. meanwhile, you had investment houses, for example lehman brothers in 1998 had $28 billion in proprietary holdings, and by 2006 that had expanded to $313 billion. again a capital base of just $18 billion in common equity. think of that leverage, $313 billion in holdings and a base of $18 billion. that enormous leverage meant that there was just a slight decline in the value of the products they were holding than the whole firm was going to come tumbling down. and because the securities started to fail, they didn't have just a slight decline -- they had a big decline -- and suddenly you have a major investment house lehman brothers, out of business.

and that sent shock waves through our entire financial enterprise. because a lot of financing short-term financing was done through 24-hour financial transactions called repurchase agreements or repo agreements. repurchase agreements. you sell an asset for 24 hours you get the money you buy it back 24 hours later and then you resell it for another 24 hours. it means every 24 hours you have to be able to come up with the cash to buy back this repo financing. so when the underlying value started to go down, the company couldn't come up with the funds to execute the repurchase agreements, and so they had to do a fire sale of their assets. if they do a fire sale of their assets that means that every other company that has similar products the value of their products now goes down the tube overnight. and then they have problems. so you have a domino effect, a contagion that spreads through the financial industry.

so let's trace this back in simple circumstances. healthy homeowner loans fully amortizing fair loans replaced by predatory teaser rate loans leading to securities based on these faulty predatory mortgages. these securities became a major financial instrument. that financial instrument collapsed when the mortgages collapsed. there was a domino effect, a contagion that brought down our entire financial house. the american worker was on the losing end of this house of cards. the american worker lost their be jo. the american worker lost their retirement savings. this american worker often lost their home because after losing their job they couldn't pay for their home. or because the teaser rate mortgage doubled in monthly payments and they couldn't make those monthly payments. that type of destruction in which wall street casino fared

so well and the american worker was so destroyed must not happen again. that is what the wall street reform bill is all about. and here on the fifth anniversary, we have ended through the volcker rule, the proprietary trading that was basically large hedge funds embodied within banks being essentially done on the backs of federal deposit insurance. that is the government was insuring the banks that were engaging in these highly leveraged hedge fund operations. and that's just wrong. if you want to operate a hedge fund absolutely, get your investors, place your bets. and if you go down the invests go down, but the banking system doesn't go down. we must not allow these highly leveraged hedge funds to be operating inside our core

banking system. the phrase that was often used as we were working on this five years ago was let's make banking boring again. take deposits, make loans through hose loans fuel the success of our families and our businesses. but if you want to be a high-risk investor, do it somewhere else. that's the core story about shutting down the wall street casino. wall street casino before dodd-frank reform bill, sorry we're closed afterwards. well i'm not sorry they're closed because we have rebuilt a financial system designed to work for working americans. and that is a good thing. i look forward to turning this over to my colleague from delaware. mr. coons: thank you mr. president. i'd like to thank my colleagues from ohio and from oregon as we come to the floor today to talk about the five years since the passage of the wall street

reform bill better known as dodd-frank and what it's meant for our states and for our country. it's no secret that delaware, my home state is also home to a very large financial services industry the whole range of financial institutions from small community banks and credit unions to largeer regional banks to some of the largest banks in the world have a home in my state and employ tens of thousands of my constituents. i understand it might be surprising to some to see me come to the floor and join my colleagues in defense of the broad and sweeping wall street reform bill that was enacted five years ago. but as a democrat representing these workers in a state that benefits from a robust financial services industry, i know how important strong, stable, secure predictable capital markets and a well functioning and well-regulated financial services industry are to a healthy economy from which we can all benefit. if we don't have a bank that we can trust we can't get a loan

or buy a home or finance an education. investments that can serve as foundations to a brighter future for our families. if we don't have robust capital markets, companies can't get money that they need to invest in people and products and services and growth and in jobs. if you think of a world without functioning or reliable financial services you can picture money sitting useless unaccessible and mattress without the roadways, the banks and financial services to connect them, the economy can't grow and recall everything grinds to a halt. we don't have to look far to see this kind of seizing up of an economy. greece has banks limited the amount of cash people could take out and the government prohibited people from sending money abroad. the result, a widespread panic, a deep distrust in banks that will take a long time to

heal. gallon markets and financial services that are well regulated and well run are important to us all. that's why we have to do everything we can to protect them. they make up a critical part of our nation's economic infrastructure and lay the foundation for economic recovery. but just as streets need traffic lights and start-up turns need speed limits and bridges need guardrails so, too financial systems need fair and enforceable regulations. the alternative is what we saw five yearsing the ago the near collapse of our economy. the 2008 financial crisis unfolded i was a local elected official in gary, not a senator. our market systems collapsed i see the real wreckage in my own home community. i saw thousands of folks who lost their jobs, lost their life savings lost their homes and the painful and lasting impact on them and our whole community. the 2008 crisis proved that a

poorly regulated market left everyone exposed to risk from consumers to financial services workers. worst of all it sparked a widespread distrust in our economy here and abroad we are still working to recover today. the devastation causedded by the great recession proved our financial system needed stronger regulations to protect consumers, families, businesses and to make sure our capital markets are liquid, are trustworthy are reliable globally to instill faith back into our economy and our system. so i believe it was in our national best interest for there to be adopted fair, predictable rules to make sure we could all drive on the road safely, metaphorically regardless of what sides car we drove or what side of the road we were driving on. five years ago in the wake of the worst financial crisis since the great depression, congress' groundbreaking wall street reforms needed to become law. these reforms took important steps to strengthen the roles

rules of the road and prevent another significant crisis for our economy. congress created an agency, the kidnap or consumer financial protection bureau with the mission to protect consumers from abusive financial products. by helping to ensure consumers have accurate financial information about the risks and benefits of financial products, kidnap works to prevent risky lending practices an essential feature of kidnap, is it's an independent agency with only one responsibility and that's protecting consumers. second, wall street reform limited risky and unsafe investment practices at the highest levels of finance. it sets strong capital standards so banks have a sturdy backstop in times of need and regulators scrutinize banks at the very limits of what is capable of regulatory oversight. congress required banks to reform risk testing to prove oversight and make sure they can

withstand turbulence regular safety drills in case of a crisis or a fire, banks are now required to make sure they have the protocols and the policies and the resources in place to respond effectively to a renewed financial crisis. last the financial crisis made it clear although there is much we can do to limit risk and are protect consumers, banks particularly big banks can still fail. and when they do, it's critical they're wound down, resolved, closed in way that's responsible, doesn't spread contagion and require an expensive taxpayer bailout. that's why the wall street reform gave government the responsibility to wind down banks so they don't cause a financial earthquake much the way the fdic has done for 80 years. while these reforms took much-needed steps towards making sure our financial system is strong and healthy, i believe

we can build on these reforms. like the key author, senator dodd former chairman dodd said just yesterday in a public event it wasn't the ten commandments that was crafted, it was a law that needs to be improved. i know it might be difficult to believe, democrats and republicans can find common ground on wall street reform but there are, in fact, changes we can agree on to make sure they protect consumers and financial services. for example we ought to lighten the regulatory burden on community banks so smaller banks can provide lending their neighborhoods need to grow an drive. that's why senator merkley and i have cosponsored senator brown's bill the bill which would help smaller banks by streamlining exams helping credit unions develop sources of capital and reducing onerous privacy notifications. many have partisan and i'm eager to implement those and other improvements. but, unfortunately, rather than

looking for ways to strengthen and sustain the broad architecture of wall street reform, too many of our republican colleagues have continued to try and roll back the clock. we've seen how republicans in the house have continued efforts to dismantle these bills in particular in recent appropriations legislation. they've supported significant harmful cuts to the regulatory agencies that are charged with rule making and oversight in the most important entities in the financial services realm. and they've also tried to undermine and undercut the kidnap,'s independence. just today senate republicans proposed similarly misguided legislation and i plan to do everything i can to protect those agencies and stop efforts to fundamentally undo important wall street reforms. it's time for my colleagues to stop proposing spending bills on a wide range of the subcommittees of the appropriations me committee that have no chance of passing and continue to push us closer to inevitable government shutdown that would debate our economy and i think cause real harm to

our working families. i've heard these very same colleagues argue by doing so they're on the side of banks and on the side of increasing the forward growth of our economy and that's why they want to dismantle regulations. what i hear from disleaders and bank leaders in my home state is the biggest threat they face are more manufactured crises here in congress that chip away the confidence in the economy that serve as a bedrock of our prosperity. as the leading democrat on the committee charged with overseeing the financial services funding bill in the senate, it's critical we work together to improve wall street reforms where we can rather than reverse what progress we've made. because whether you're a republican or a democrat, a consumer or a banker, a c.e.o. or small business owner a family member or financial services worker, we can all agree that we don't want another financial crisis. and nobody wants another bailout, the banks included.

i strongly believe you can be pro-business pro-financial services and still believe in smart, strong, sensible regulation to keep everyone in our financial services system healthy and our overall system and economy safe. i believe a well regulated financial system is critical to sustaining this sector into the future and ensuring it's la place to invest in from home or abroad and a strong, secure, stable economy has been the hallmark of america's global leadership. i think we need to work together to make sure it remains that way for decades to come. wall street reform was the result of a lot of hard work and compromise just five years ago and i look forward to working with my colleagues to continue strengthening the financial rules of the road as we go further into the future together. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. the presiding officer: without objection.

because we also now have both scheduled prior to that we will dispense with our opening statements, which is anyone who watches congressional hearings knows it's unprecedented in the historical annals of commerce but they will be official record, so unless there is objection from each side of the aisle i would like to proceed straight to our panel of witnesses for their expert testimony. this is unimportant hearing on

promoting broadband infrastructure investment and you all are on the frontlines of that and we look to your for guidance, suggestions as we go forward, so we will start right out with jonathan, president cop cia, former mr. bush commissioner of the federal trade commission commission. we are delighted to have you here. please go ahead. >> leadership on this issue over many years and we appreciate the opportunity two testify in this critical hearing. we represent companies that build, design, own and manage facilities around the world any us. members include wireless carriers, at the structure providers, equipment manufacturers and professional service firms in our mission is too expand wireless broadband everywhere. to meet consumer growing mobile data needs anytime anyplace turned wireless infrastructure plays an essential role in meeting the data demand that people are asking for so much of.

infrastructure makes wireless work and enables delivery of application and life-changing services such as telemedicine and distance learning turn is a catalyst for economic growth and job creation. study found investments in our industry will generate 1.2 trillion in a comic growth and create 1.3 million new jobs over five years. this committee has shown great leadership. yet shown great leadership mr. chairman. i commend you and we are thrilled of the leadership of this community. most notably section 64 of the act has had real ink pact on the ground. in illuminated major local migratory barriers two upgrading existing wireless infrastructure. the fcc has done an outstanding job on a bipartisan basin of implement a not long with clear framework of rules. we still face major challenges.

its projected demand for wireless data will increase by about 700% over the next five years. the question is how we will meet that exploding demand. one way is as much as we can get as fast as we can get and again this committee has done great work on that front. spectrum as you know is expensive and takes a long time to get into use by consumers and all the more reason to move quickly. also-- moving from 2g to 4g and the on and the networks themselves are getting smarter ducking capacity where it is needed, but it also takes time to develop and implement third of the third ways two meet the exploding demand for data two see with the rapid deployment of infrastructure regardless of the structured driven by private capital addresses wireless data crunch as soon as it's the portrait solutions ran from traditional towers to wide coverage and capacity two small cells antenna systems that fill gaps in the capacity and target high-traffic areas. intensification of network reuses existing spectrum the point more antennas allows

carriers two squeeze more out of existing spectrum. out of resistance two signing this equipment where necessary and condors can do more to help. one liz-- way is based-- [inaudible] >> an executive order by the president significant challenges remain on federal property. further, legislation two facilitate action of autoland two expand and increase employment in rural areas. pci supports what has recently introduced in the senate and we look forward continued work with this committee on developing legislation as well. additional roadblocks remain despite wet this committee has provided. some provide proof of need. these requirements archaeological and cost local communities. our members investor capital where it is needed to serve consumers and local governments are not in a good position two second-guess these questions.

continued efforts to harmonize the rates would also help promote broadband investment. fcc has taken steps to provide greater access, timing and fair rates to read states that relate their own polls should follow this lead. in some wireless infrastructure boost every sector of the economy. it promotes economic growth job creation and local competitiveness, yet challenges remain. from congress two local governments need to illuminate migratory barriers so our industry can invest capital without resistance and not at cost and delays that will slow the rollout of wireless broadband to read our companies are grateful for the person recognition of this wireless in the structure by this committee, congress, by the administration and fcc. i would add that we look forward to making continued progress together on some ideas we have laid out today. we thank you ranking member for

joining us and thank you for holding his hearing to address these urgent issues. >> thank you. we appreciate your testimony and look for it to further discussions on these matters. to the honorable stephen low lewis. governor, we are delighted to have you here and i enjoyed the time i was in your community and too read your facility and we are glad you could be here to share your thoughts on the challenges you face. >> thank you, chairman. thank you for the opportunity two testify on behalf of the community. i also want to again thank chairman walden for visiting the community as you just heard to see firsthand the obstacles that tribe space in deploying broadband. i want to thank the ranking member and mr. lujan for the request to have the government accounting office look into the challenges and barriers two deployment on tribal lands. are broadband provider which we refer to as grt i was founded in

1980 and is owned by our community. our reservation is approximately 372,000 acres. we have more than 20000 members and almost 12000 community members living on our reservation. when we first purchased from 1988, only 10% of our residents had access to basic phone service. those looking to get connected had to pay tens of thousands of dollars before mountain bellwood install the party line connection. today, grt i offers home service to 100% of our residents and 84% of the residents subscribe. we also offer broadband services across reservation we are very proud of the success. gr g.i. on with the national tribal telecommunication association work together to

raise awareness about the unique challenges for deploying broadband on tribal land. tribal land is the least served area in the country. approximately 40% of tribal land in the lower 48 states lack access. and 68% lack access. there are a number of obstacles the present challenges to broad brand deployment on tribal land and i've set those out in more detail in my written testimony, but i would like to summarize them for you. first, population density is optical. it is at 20 persons per square mile. the county adjacent to the reservation has approximate 414 persons per square mile. rugged terrain characterized by mounds and hard soil is also typical of tribal land. low median income and high rates of poverty. it presents a severe challenge for the delivery of broadband.

the median income on a reservation of $24000 to $59000 in arizona. approximately 40% of the persons living on the reservation live below the poverty level compared to 15% for arizona. these equinox circumstances are not unique to our travel community. failed federal policies from the past continue to negatively impact many tribes. our community and others like it continue to struggle with the failed policy of allotment. because of the allotment policy obtaining rights away in order to deploy broadband is complex and raises cost substantially and delays the point. finally, access to capital is a barrier. tribal land cannot be leveraged as collateral for secured loans because they are held in trust by the united states for the benefit of the tribe. thus, private capital is often

not available meaning the only lender available is the federal government. specifically the rural utilities service. our us loans were critical to grt i went and took over its service area and remains critical as that warm springs in organ can attest. the common nation of these has resulted in grt i average costs being over $2873. because tribal nations face many challenges we often need to have solutions for having tribes at the table and engaging in government two government consultation is critical. too often federal policy has unintended consequences on tribes because we were not properly consulted in the beginning. the current effort to reform the universal service fund is a good example. usf is properly scoped critically important source of funding to help make it possible to deploy broadband to our reservation steered tribes have

offered a proposal that would target specific support to tribal land through a tribal broadband factor. that can be added to proposals for standalone broadband fun. inclusion of this factor would promote targeted use of universal service funding to advance the policy objective of ensuring broadband is made available to all americans. including those living on tribal land. the fcc's office native american affairs and policy has been a welcome addition two the commission's outreach efforts to ensure tribes are included in the developing of proposals two deploy broadband. sometimes fcc forgets about tribes and that is why we appreciate the fcc from a bipartisan group of members of this committee reminding the commission that tribal leaders need a seat at the table. i appreciate the opportunity two speak with you today and hope to be an ongoing resource for the community. thank you.

>> thank you, governor. we appreciate your testimony and insight. we will go down to craig moffett. mr. moffat, we are delighted to have you here as well. go ahead. >> thank you, members of the subcommittee for your having me participate. i've been a financial analyst-- analyst focusing on the telekinetic asian industry or the past 14 years. before that i spent 11 years at a consultant group advising telecommunication company and this is my 25th year in the sector and i've spent much of that career focused on issues of broadband deployment. with that in mind, i thought i would share some general observations today about the economic a broadband particularly focusing on the economics of competitive broadband. first come i would start by saying the obvious. in the structure deployment requires the expectation of a healthy return on capital. that should be taken as a given but all too often my experience

the issue of return on capital is either ignored or misunderstood in policy forms. it's not a matter of whether a business is or is not profitable instead a matter of whether a business is sufficiently profitable to warrant the high level of capital investment required for the deployment of infrastructure. with that in mind and 202014 the largest companies in the cable industry earned a healthy return to read the physical assets of comcast, time warner cable, charter and cablevision all learned healthy returns in excess of their cost to capital with returns ranging from 13 to 33%. those returns are unusually high for capital-intensive industry. on the other hand, it should be noted they earned returns below the cost of capital for decades and any long-term return on network if a structure has to earn returns well in excess of the cost of capital during the maturity of network to offset what we are typically were years or decades. by contrast large telephone

companies do not earn attractive returns on their wireline businesses. for example, a decade after first undertaking the fiber two the home buildout 280 million homes verizon has not yet come close to earning a return in excess of their cost to capital. in 2014, their aggregate wired in the structure business earned a 1.2% return against a cost of capital of 5%. for the nonfinancial types in the room that is the equivalent of borrowing money at 5% interest in order to earn 1% interest. that's a good way two go bankrupt. no one would undertake to replicate those disastrous financial returns. at&t which at around the same time began deploying a much less robust and therefore less costly fiber two minot networks has also earned poor returns. it has been declined for a decade and like verizon is well below the cost of capital. at&t is committed to the fcc to

make fire available to a total of i now believe it's 12 and a half million homes. in order to make their acquisition of directv more palatable to policy makers, but it's hard to be optimistic they will do much better this time around. that said, there have been changes in the market with the deployment of the broadband network. the bendable fire has helped lower the cost. google has popularized the-- before the network is built. so google can target areas where the company has the best chance of earning an acceptable return while some critics would call that redlining as it typically means broadband won't be built to the lower income communities, it has been successful in boosting overall project returns and you can too give it as well as ensuring all the children in the class really are above average. still, the broader take away here is the returns to be had

from overbilling and that is the site or third broadband provider in any given market are generally poor. simply stated it means the market forces are unlikely to yield a fully competitive broadband market. neither by the way, does wireless appear to offer the promise of imminent competition or in combat wire broadband providers to read wireless networks simply are not engineered for the kind of sustained group required for wired broadband replacement services. wireless networks also generally earn relatively poor returns on capital. returns for verizon and at&t are middling and for sprint and t-mobile are poor as consequence of aggressive price competition in the wireless market. either a satellite a broad band compelling replacement. costs are high and it's the nature of satellite connection that it has to travel 22000 miles and back such as it

will be a problem. the simple economic reality is over building is necessarily going to be somewhat limited given relative poor financial return that can be expected and alternatives are for a few between. that gives rise to the impulse among some too regulate incumbent networks already there. that is it is not unreasonable assumption that any attempts to foster competition will be ultimately be unsuccessful. and that regulation is incumbent and in this case the cable operators therefore required. counter argument that regulation will stifle investment among incumbent providers and therefore make the problem worse and will in the process generate a welcome on attending consequences is equally well intentioned and unfortunately is equal well purported evidence and that is to say there is no easy answers here. i will conclude by adding a few additional observations about the cable industry. as everyone understands the cable video business is facing unprecedented pressure.

cord cutting has been talked about for years and is finally starting to show up in a meaningful way and the numbers and ensuring programming costs are eating away at video prophet margins two read from a cable operating perspective the video business and broadband interest are on opposite sides of the same coin. pressure on the video prophet will therefore naturally trigger a pricing response in broadband where cable operators have greater leverage and that may sound good but it's not intended to be separate it's an observation cable operators have certainly benefited from the factor of the structure can support two separate businesses and each can be delivered at a lower cost. the aca or american cable association has made this case eloquently in arguing that absent reforms to restrain runaway programming cost growth video will be unprofitable in broadband will be left to carry the entire burden of incremental deployment. all being equal that would mean even new build of broadband will become increasingly economically challenged and therefore will become less and less likely or

as i'm quick to add this as my own editorial rather than aca's point it will simply add this price of broadbent and as that unless i would observe the pressure of the video business attributable to more than just cost inflation and this may therefore be an unavoidable scenario. i will leave my remarks there. they are not excessively gloomy. the us broadbent of the structure is the envy of the world notwithstanding my view that there are places-- politicized statistics that suggest otherwise. it is the case that broadband isn't it the structure that is difficult to support 211 in cases one of and i would submit a clear acknowledgment of the broadband business that it demands a seat at the table. thank you for your time the opportunity two testify. >> thank you, mr. moffat and we appreciate your analysis. now to michael slinger, doctor google fiber. thank you.

you will need to pull a microphone very close and push the little button there until the light stays on. >> chairman waldon, ranking member and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the imitation to testify about investment in broadband in the structure and we a successful agenda two benefit the economy carried my name is michael slinger and i crilly served as director of google fiber city team. i oversee the operations, business strategy and on the ground outreach two bring high-speed to city where we deploy google fiber two cities across the us. we have long believed the next chapter of the internet will be the biggest bit speed. it provides enough all home devices. think about in these terms, it today were riding a bike having

a gig means we could be driving a race car. it's that much faster. that's why we launched google fiber that provides connections of up to a thousand megabits per second. our goal is to make the web faster, more affordable, more relevant and more useful for everyone. we launched the service five years ago and today it's available in kansas city kansas, kansas city, missouri, austin texas. in addition, when the process of building and networking six other markets and exploring bringing it to another for on top of that. in rolling out google fiber we've built a network from scratch. one street, one poll, one house at a time. this means reviewing and the structure and working closely with cities to make sure we are ready to work together to design and build a granular network. this experience has given us insight into barriers of deployment. policy changes that could reduce barriers. first, policymakers can't easy gaining access to existing if the structure. to construct high-speed networks, broadband providers need access to existing utility

of the structure such as polls, conduits, on a consistent cost effective and timely basis. while the fcc has taken important steps to improve rules related of the structure access, our own experience in building new broadband networks demonstrates that more work needs to be done too reduce delays and barriers. second policymakers can ease right of ways. the expense and complexity of obtaining access to public right-of-way in some jurisdictions may increase the cost and slow the broadband deployment. policies that facilitate partnerships between different entities and companies doing local construction can be beneficial and we also see a lot of benefit in instituting policies which may involve the installation of an oversight conduit bank within the right away through third policymakers can help resolve the challenge of high rates for access to video programming.

this would help smaller players in the business negotiate fair terms or access to popular broadcast and cable content and make it easier to attract and retain subscribers. finally, i would be remiss if i failed to mention the importance of balance spectrum policy and promote innovation. federal agencies should pursue a balanced approach to spectrum reallocation that allows for license and nonlicensed commercial use with a variety frequency. i will note as we think about deploying gigabit speed networks we need to keep in mind that about 30% of americans still don't use the internet home. this means they are at a disadvantage when it comes to education, job opportunities social and civic engagement. one of our main priorities and building digital inclusion into our deployment plan from the beginning. we are guided by a couple of main principles. make the internet more affordable make access to the community and teach people how to get online. just last week as part of the

connect home initiative announced by president obama we committed to bringing our google fiber internet service to residents in select affordable housing property across our fiber cities for $0 per month with no installation fee per we are also partnering with community organizations on computer labs and digital literacy programming and a grateful for the partners we get to work with too get more people connected. thank you again for the invitation two speak at this hearing and to share our views on how we can remove barriers give americans more choices at higher speeds and help reach the goal of nationwide broadband abundance. >> thank you and we appreciate your testimony and we will go to our final witness today, debbie, executive director century city so we are delighted to have you here as well. >> good afternoon. thank you for holding this hearing on such an important topic. my name is dead so shut and on the executive director of next century cities, a bipartisan city two city collaborative

formed last october. we have grown two over 100 member cities all of whom are dedicated to ensuring access to fast, affordable and reliable broadband. high-speed access essential to americans economic future. it's as simple as that. what can be complicated is making it happen on the ground. cities face a range of technical and political challenges including obstacles at the state and federal level. more and more providing for this critical need has emerged as a core responsibility for local governments. many cities and towns from around the country are taking diverse and creative steps to secure their intranet future. when it comes to providing access to high-quality internet everyone has a role two play. it's an issue that stands political party, an issue that crosses the urban rural divide and an issue that relies on many sectors of our society. there is nothing a pathway two next-generation broadband network. in several of the most innovative solutions have emerged in onyx picked the

places small towns in idaho and mount vernon, washington, have each developed a gigabit open access network. these local governments have involved in building the physical and the structure and leasing access to competing private providers. just outside of baltimore, westminster maryland, has initiated a public-private partnership with king provider of fiber internet service and with the introduction of google-- google fiber in kansas city, residents can experience high-speed at an affordable rate. cities like that yet, have built their own network and now has some of the fastest local mobley competitive access available. next century city is dedicated to helping our communities achieve high-quality access regardless of the path they choose to pursue. our membership represents an inclusive cross-section of america from small rural communities such as winthrop

minnesota, two large urban areas like la and boston. what unites these committees is a commitment of broadband access for continued growth and an understanding google governments are best situated to understand and provide for the need of their residence two read it's an exciting time. in time for creative local solutions two our sure in a new generation of innovation as the image that continues to transform all aspects of society. next century city recently developed a policy agenda showing-- the crucial infrastructure needed to do consistent with our mission this new resource provides guidance that will be useful to communities regardless of how they choose to pursue their broadband goals. part of the policy looks at steps local and state government two use high-quality access. local governments can institute

policies that minimize disruption as well as take other steps to ensure the cities are fiber ready. at the state level the policy agenda addresses changes such as modernizing state regulations and making investments in the middle mile at the structure. here on capitol hill 20 of the the recommendations we heard about steps the federal government could take to help empower local communities. first and foremost, congress can encourage competitive local markets through national legislation and other avenues. in addition, you have the ability two provide a national platform for the issue of broadband as necessary if the structure hearings such as this help to elevate this discussion and attract national attention two this critical issue. finally, the policy agenda discusses how congress could better require information about available internet access including speed of connection, price for consumers and areas of operation for service providers. as is clear from everything we've heard today the need for fast, affordable and reliable broadband and internet access is undeniable. innovative leaders in

communities across the country recognizes urgent need and are developing the critical broadband at the structure that will allow the restaurants and cities to thrive to read it's evident by the over 100 next century cities i am speaking on behalf of today communities that represent over 18 million americans. thank you for providing this platform for communities to share their experiences and develop opportunities for collaboration with federal policymakers. i look forward to working with members of this committee and your colleagues two ensure that that communities across the country have the next generation access to all americans need and deserve. thank you. >> thank you very much for your testimony and insights. i will start off with questions. as you probably know the middle-class tax release in job creation government service agency:

>> three years after congress enacted this legislation. it has not been proactive. the common forms application like 30. vacancies in a while -- we

having to negotiate for each and every site individually just as they have in the past and urgent lack of coverage. i think they're may be a need for further legislation >> or maybe a hearing with one witness. i alwaysi always like this. i appreciate that. for the rest of the panel, your right into the federal side of this. this is what we raised. it's important. i don't think they have it right yet. traditionally network operators were given a monopoly exchange. inin the models we have been discussing carriers only deploy to areas where they're is an economic case.

how do we balance network economies with the threat of redlining. the incredible buildout is being done for which i applaud. the district that is getting access to the tribal lands getting access out into the rural communities whether it is wired or wireless. it remains a big problem. i wonder how we can address that better place the interesting thing when you talk about profit from a problem, the problem across the board with building out to rural locations and therefore requiring an influx of capital the gist is no way to do that. ithat. i think the ways that our cities are looking at what is the profit from them bit little bit different than the way the company might look at what a profit is. it's about education, public safety economic development

command all of these opportunities that are presented when you have access. how do we ensure that the tribal communities can benefit the same ways. >> this is also an issue just in getting wireless phone coverage out to areas of montana, upstate new york. the case is been made. it remains a real issue. the job is not done. from your perspective as an analyst what do we do? >> i would certainly agree. those projects in more rural areas. that said, the target funds will improve sense of those funds are more carefully directed to any new greenfield projects for

places that have not been served in the past. there is some controversy around whether an area is either partially server sufficiently served. secondarily, i think it's also important that this connect america funds be made available to all manner of companies so that they're can be more competition with providers of the services like a quick answer good good -- does google have plans to model out in rural remote areas to see if you can make that work? >> as you know, fiber may not be they're. we want to make sure for unlicensed wireless technology as well as experiment in technology as

well with fixed wing aircraft and new mexico. we think the rural areas and maybe new technologies that we will affordably bring internet to those areas. >> hadit to cut you off, but i know we are tight for time attend my colleagues in california. >> thank you. the very important hearing and high level of cooperation relative to witnesses and invitations. we appreciate it. it's great to see you. former commissioner at the fcc and tocommand to everyone and accepted our invitation to be here today. mr. slinger 1st of all thank you for your important advocacy for the big ones policy. i wish that the congress had passed it because i think that we would have more of

that policy actually, excuse the expression, embedded in our federal roadways, but how do you think the executive order is working? i want to get my questions at 1st. okay? the time his brief. if you think there are any additional steps that congress should take to incentive that deployment of conduit as part of the federal highway projects that system which ii don't know right now it does not seem like our project is going anywhere. just being driven off the road in congress. anyway, maybe we can concentrate on that. mr. moffat, i listened carefully to what you said and i think it is highly thispessimistic. it is depressing to listen to your description of every sector of the telecommunications marketplace command my question to you would be

where do you see a price but? together lewis, thank you. that was reportedthat was report that just came out in terms of broadband contraction our country. the 24th in the world. i think that a good part of that number is a representation of native americans and reservations our country. it is a shameful record, shameful record. i think it is going to be something that moves up to the top of the list in a bipartisan way to see the what we bring to the parts of the country where they are reservations that you get first-class service for first-class citizenship you really do. for students to have to be driven by there parents 65 and 75 miles away to sit in

the car in order to get some kind of connection to do there homework i don't think any member of congress who is apparent whatever but that. we should not have that in our country. i hope that mr. slinger governor luis will follow partnership and then come back and report to us. i would like to have you meet and see what you can come up with because you both need each other command we need both of you. and do you support -- does century city support the local municipal, having local municipal systems? >> we support whatever it is our local communities need to do in order to get where there going. >> that doesn't answer my question. >> okay. >> it is too broad. >> i understand. >> many of our mayor signed on to a letter we sent to

the sec in support of the preemption. the two cities the filed petitions are two of our cities. and we believe we have deeply for the idea that competition is important and believe deeply in the idea that folks should be a soft local problems in a way that makes sense. >> i come from local government. i agree with you. i regularly here from constituents who are frustrated with the power site process. here's what play everyone wants great service, the best service in the whole wide world. but no one wants to wireless tower in the backyard where they can see it anywhere near where they live.

how do you respond to this? you know, the people who say that reforms need to be made to take away local jurisdictions of the placement of cell towers. it is really like trying to get socks on an octopus. they wanted, they don't. there are some have to use in this. those are my questions. you have 13 seconds to answer them.. no, you don't have any time. but you can respond in writing. thatthat way i'll get more meat on the bones i think. thank you for being here. please come together. facilitate and let us know. >> the time is expired. >> thank you,you

mr. chairman. thank you for a panel today in our discussion. to some of the questions that the chairman is posing. the tsa dragging his feet and getting some of these things done especially were talking about the streamlined process to providers and other approvals needed to build on federal lands. just out of curiosity on average how long does it take for negotiation process for the federal government to bring a private industry? >> it takes about four years with the federal government and less than half of that with the private sector. sometimes it can drag on longer. private companies will just avoid federal land because it takes so long and you don't see the return on investment. the federal government we will go right next door if there is nonfederal land

nearby. >> your saying that on average they can drag out even longer. >> that's right. >> any idea, any ideas or examples of how long some of it will take? >> over four years. >> i've heard ten years and longer. i have heard sometimes you try and it never gets done. there is not even a finality a finality to it no decision-making processes in place. the committee in its wisdom said the gsa was supposed to take steps and did it has not been done. >> because of that four to ten or infinity and beyond for what additional costs are occurred when the federal government is not able to streamline this process? >> well, they're is lost revenue, a huge cost to try to go through the process. individuals trying to the site acquisition done. it's a shame. especially in rural areas, a lot of valuable federal buildings which could use a facility to deal with the

capacity demand. it'sdemand. it's a shame that these negotiations take so long until the knew where. the companies lose valuable places and the consumers lose access to service that they need. >> thank you. in your testimonyin your testimony you were talking about the percentage of the population out they're that doesn't have access to broadband. what percentage would that be to act. >> what we're seeing now but 60 million americans. twenty-five to 30% of people have never had an internet connection home. they may have access to cell phones but no internet connection at home. >> two quick follow-ups. again, i represent urban and rural communities. when you look at the numbers and that the percentages when you have -- what percentage of the urban suburban rural percentages when you talk.

>> 50 million. >> yes. >> how would that breakdown and now many people would that include that would not want to have access to broadband? >> breakdown of urban versus rural within the numbers. again, in urban areas i can safely say many cities 25 to 30 percent don't have anything on all. no internet connection. >> thank you. gov., if i could turn to you.you. thank you for being hear with us for your testimony. again, you said that you have a very, verya very very rural population. i think you said you have about 20 persons per square mile. it's a great concern in your area along with all the rural areas in the country about having that essential broadband for constituents. you talk about how that

would help you.you. are they're other areas that you can see that would be beneficial to you and your community? >> thank you for that question. first of all i would like to recognize i have two of my councilmembers are. also from our g iti telecommunications: announcement pamela thomas. >> thank you. >> thank you. and i would say that one critical issue. you know, it's a challenge where it's a complex issue that has to do with the nature of travel and because back to the allotment policy that have a devastating effect on travel and. so the short answer if they do not give right always we have to build around which costs -- it's very capital intensive.

we either have to move to another route where we can and some casesin some cases build a wireless link to go over a way and obviously this is pretty costly as compared to stretching through an established right-of-way that sometimes this is only course of action. that is an issue that we need to look at. another is the et c designation process which is overly complicated. streamlining would be welcome too many tribes. >> thank you very much. my time is expired and i yield back. >> thank you command we recognize the gentleman from new jersey five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to give one question in about infrastructure during disasters like hurricane sandy, but then i want to get a question and government removes. i'll try to this up. three years ago hurricane

sandy devastated my district the force of the storm knocked out communication for days. you testified about all the wireless infrastructure is being deployed an upgraded. my constituents are also concerned about where the equipment works in a disaster. was your industry doing to make sure people can call for help and reached the ones in an emergency. >> reliable access to telecommunications is a top priority and we want to make sure customers have access for many most. we saw cooperation. they said the network operation centers.centers. in terms of the structures themselves, not one went down during the storm. the issue was things beyond the control of power companies, access to roads

trees the film. what makes it difficult is sometimes we cannot even get generators cited by back to the issue of this committee. it violates a noise statute. i don't think anyone would complain about the noise of a generator when otherwise the phone won't work and get localities will not allow us to put them they're and then complain with the system does not work in a disaster. we need more proactive thinking. one more., the best thing you can do is redundancy. the more likely you will have one that works. all of the work done by committee is promoting redundancy and assuring that there we will be adequate facilities and case of emergency and more likelihood that they will survive a disaster of the available for use of public safety as well as for the citizens in the committee. >> comment on the fcc's work they committed to act by the

end of the year and complete its rulemaking. >> we are thrilled. we have worked closely with the chairman and other members of the commission in looking at a cooperative arrangement where we can try to provide incentives for industry to deploy this kind of equipment. industry is doing a lot already making major investments command we are working together in a cooperative fashion. we believe that the goals are shared making sure that these networks are resilient and redundant. >> thank you and let me go together lewis. i love's the reservation. you know, on the one hand i was thinking that relative to many tribes might have more ability than some of the even more remote or poorer tribes to achieve some of the goals that you mentioned. so i just want to ask about funding. you mentioned the universal service fund.

i guess the gentleman from google talked about this connect home initiative. i initiative. i think the president was actually at the choctaw reservation last week talking about that. what are the sources of funding? universal service fund useful now? what would we have to do to improve it? what can the federal government do in terms of funding for travel infrastructure? particularly those tribes it might even have more difficulty. new mexico or the tribes at the grand canyon the river, less funding available. how are these funds helpful to you? >> thank you. you're always welcome.

with us of funding stable funding mechanisms are critical to businesses like grt i was a have to develop the product -- deployment plans and rely on federal funding sources to be they're. us funding is critical for providing funding for infrastructure buildout which is critical to the long-term sustainability of these telecommunications providers. >> are you able -- are you using funds from universal service now? >> yes, we are. >> and how is that working? >> that is critical to the overall business plan. it's critical with regard to

long-term capitol buildout. >> thank you. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from illinois. >> thank you. great panel. i want to highlight challenges. the environmental review process is important. have you thought through how local municipalities and they do there zoning's outside of federal land and how we can marry that what goes on they're. >> yes. you know, some localities are great. we heard from google that those communities make it easier to get access which is where the investment goes those the throw up roadblocks they're are some that are not seeing the investment they would get if

they were not throwing up roadblocks. to the question about not in my backyard, they are going to have service in there backyard. we work cooperatively and try to every single facility that has been cited has been cited in cooperation with local government but it took the work of this committee to say you don't have to get another zoning committee. why shouldwhy should the committee have to do that? increasingly communities are recognizing this. the smart ones are moving ahead. ten states have enacted laws to streamline deployment in there states and they are seeing more investment. working with local partners to get word out about how the fcc is implement in a law that you passed. >> let me get together lewis on federal properties. they have to get past the government land issue. the question is can we not force zoning issue get you

guys are zoning ability like would you municipalities? >> a bill has been introduced that would create a standard fee schedule, the retention for the agency that the agency could keep the money they get to pay for the cost of processing. there isprocessing. there is a need for more legislation to do what you ask them to do already. and expectancy of lease renewal. >> let me get government loses response. >> federal land on indian country has been a long issue with regard to our unique situation has indian tribes and the nature of indian land in regard to highly fractionated land interest. it's just so critical and sometimes one of the major obstacles to build up with regard to getting right of ways. if we could streamline the

process through the bureau of indian affairs through the department of interior that would greatly help out travel infrastructure buildout in the future. >> great. thank you. my largest community my congressional district is 33,000 people. when do you thinkwhen do you think google will hit that in your timeline? >> did you want to name the community? >> i'm not the chairman of the committee, so i don't have as much power. >> we published this checklist so that we can do cities to get ready by themselves for fiber deployment whether google fiber or any other provider by making sure they has been permitting processes to make it easy for people to get on telephone poles to streamline makeready engineering and construction >> the same type of debate is we're talking with the role of federal and deployment the ease of being able to have access and timely response.

it's allit's all about return on investment. if you believe the capitalist model if a if a rural area can make ago based upon the formula you have to be able to dip into our us or other forms of low interest loans to make the business sense. >> that's exactly correct. >> and time is money. anyway affects the ability for someone to go to capital markets to make a pitch that there going to get the return on investment. >> that's correct as well. >> thank you and i yield back my time. >> the german yields back his time. >> thanktime. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for this excellent hearing. look back. broadband infrastructure has been a critical component to every facet daily life for students using blackboard for school or watching the.

>> and amazon the stream movies and tv shows. by all levels of government to communicate and increasingly leverage the network to improve the delivery of service, pittsburgh in partnership with carnegie mellon university's employing deploying a connected platform that will integrate road sensors traffic cameras and information kiosks to create aa living laboratory in the city skill for the next generation technologies which we will be used to improve traffic patterns in real-time allowing city departments to efficiently predictor of rare and scheduled maintenance and to allow people to explore and interact with the city more effectively. fast, available,. fast, available, ubiquitous broadband infrastructure provides the basis for these next-generation solutions. i am a big fan of making every tool in the toolbox available to local government to make sure that they have access to the best networks and the best platforms in order to

improve the lives of people living in. mr. chairman but to work with you on putting together legislation to address these challenges. let me start come out localities leverage shared infrastructure to expand access and increase the popular broadband? cities like pittsburgh building this infrastructure to address are only visible needs, how can we and other municipalities use what we're building to expand access more broadly and what if anything stands in the way of municipalities leveraging infrastructure? >> the interesting work has been done all over the country. manycountry. many universities are using smart infrastructure to do interesting work determine particulars in the air and checking aspirates and using streetlights that have cameras in the public safety we are. we're seeing more of that happen command i think there are barriers for cities to

do this work and some of them are state regulations that prohibit building out there own infrastructure. in some cases it is as was mentio

>> the thank you for the question. you are right they're are a wide range of economic models. it is a challenge because there is no near-term variable cost that dictate the cost-plus model command so you see companies experimenting because there trying to figure out what the quantity demanded we will be. obviously you tendobviously you tend to have lower prices where you have multiple competing networks and then it raises the question of whether the providers are earning a sufficient return. in many cases that are not. this is a difficult area to do economic research because a lot of companies have

different motives and profitability of the network. >> we have to go to another member. >> look at the city's and we have seen incumbent prices drop as please go up. >> now go to the german from the louisiana five minutes. >> thank you. appreciate you having this hearing. you talk to your opening statement about the work that has been done to expand spectrum. a lot of that we can come together to make spectrum available. the chairman has been a leader in. one part of that equation is expanding more spectrum. the other part is your members where you build that infrastructure. if you could share with us some of the challenges were

hurdles that your members face to make anthe investment they need to make to take advantage of spectrum making more spectrum available in the marketplace. >> spectrum has been quite a little. 41 billion has been spent. >> a little bit better than the estimate. >> which was zero. >> they recognize the value of the spectrum that clearly everyone else seems to no about. >> the cbo estimated zero. they were off a little bit. butbut the fact is, that was for a 12 percent increase. you got a 12 percent increase in the throughput and have 700 percent in the next five years. down to 685 percent. no one way to go. local it is often are saying no.

we have the business case that has to be made in rural areas to as we discussed command overall return on investment is difficult but the prices for spectrum revenue. i like to joke you know you are in trouble when your quick solution is infrastructure. it is immediately available when is built. all of these burdens on federal land urban areas the fcc in the committee has been a great job trying to address it,it, we need to work with partners in state and local government. >> we have been grappling with that trying to remove burdens, not just in the spectrum space but in other areas as it relates to into

energy production, federal land in local areas restrictions which make it hard to experience economic opportunity. thank you for that answer. in summary if you could share similar challenges some actions that congress or the fcc can take to further expanding opportunities for wi-fi, broadband. >> as i said earlier they're are opportunities in next america funds and making those available to a wider range of companies for bringing broadband to rural areas but there is an overarching question related to the question that the ranking member asked about where the bright spots on. if you think about this as a larger value chain of microeconomics, everything from the content companies and internet providers to the internet providers over the bright spots are is

clearly outside of infrastructure. at developers and content companies are earning extraordinary returns, and there is a knee-jerk and familiar regulatory impulse to try to protect the companies making high returns from the ones making low returns. that's an odd structure. >> final question when google fiber was being deployed you were able to work with local government they give exemptions expedited approval processes so that not just your but other new entrants pueblo things quicker. if you can talk about the ability for local government to take more of that deregulatory approach and deregulation in the sense of helping expedite the

expansion of technology has helped you or others to develop more. >> sure command i we will go back to the fiber checklist which we published in 2014. major areas obviously i getting access and making it easy to do the makeready construction. one thing that has been suggested was a municipalities took a proactive step while are doing maintenance if they can do the makeready i get rid of the old wires and makes lots of knew entrants to get in quickly and detestable that would help. again date was policies and accessed right away there's more we can do with local communities and federal highways. we put in conduit that anyone can use. smart things that allow new market entrants and more competition and choice. >> thank you for the answers

i yield back the balance of my time. >> unfortunately we will have to pull this to a close because we're down to four minutes. this is nothing last hearing. we expect to continue his going forward. your testimony has gotten us to a good starting place. we have follow-up work to do they are members who did not get a chance to ask questions. we have information to submit for the record. i believe you have a document you wanted to submit. with that, i'm afraid we're going to five just a minute or two? >> yes. >> go ahead. >> i was curious. i wanted to ask some questions. i find what you are talking about interesting because i look at this. what you say is important

about deploying broadband infrastructure command i'm from sacramento. we have. we had wonderful areas doing great things, but i'm looking at a particular area that is economically deprived. we have awe have a light rail station that is going to be completed their with fiber. but yet we have schools and libraries that are just deprived and business people who have no access. if we were to do something there have a special project i'm working at this being special for economic development. is that something if we can provide the access the city need is that something you or someone else can take on as a project? am trying very much to help this area looking at the

rest of my district the feels like they are on the move command they are not. i want to get them on the move. is they're something we can do? >> there's a lot we do early-stage to make sure they have the right kind of digital inclusion plans in place to make sure the city's focus. there is no silver bullet. wewe want to make sure local providers and community groups take this on to really make sure people understand the relevancy and hopefully get more people mine. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. we're going to have to call it to a conclusion. votes on the house floor. thank you for your testimony, counsel. we lookwe look forward to being back in touch as we move forward and others who have ideas for the congressman how we can expand access.

indian reservations micro- communities, urban communities. we have some travel letters for the record as well which we're happy to accept. with that we adjourned. [inaudible conversations] 's. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> looking live at the us capitol were secretary of state john kerry has been much of the afternoon briefing members of the house. we understand that briefing is wrapping up in the senate should be gambling back shortly.

more consideration of highway funding. the afternoon began with the briefing for house members, secure briefing in the capitol visitor center. here is what secretary kerry had to say. >> let me say quickly that we have been looking forward to this day because we get to talk substance get out the politics and under the facts. looking forward to answering any questions. we are convinced the agreement we have arrived at the world powers is an agreement that will prevent iran from the potential of securing. it will make the world safer.

we are convinced with the absence of any viable alternative absolutely underscoring that fact. we lookwe look forward to the discussion today and later answering other questions from all of you. >> and present now for over a year. he has been released as part of the steel? >> secretary of state joined by energy secretary mid afternoon today as they were about to brief house members we understand that they are about wrapped up with senators, and the senate should be gambling back -- should be gambling back in. 10:00 a.m. eastern. live coverage of the senate when they gavel back in hear on c-span2. at the same time we things were getting underway.

the attorney general announcing federal indictments in the charleston shooting case and the charges of hate crimes against the alleged shooter. we will show you as much as we can do for briefing. >> good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for coming. i am joined by the head of the department's civil rights division and deputy director of the fbi. we are hear to announce a federal grand jury in south carolina has returned a 32 count indictment charging federal hate crimes and firearms charges for killing and attempting to kill african-american parishioners at emmanuel african-american episcopal church in charleston south carolina because of there race and in order to interfere with the exercise of there religion.

as set forth in the indictment, several months prior to the tragic events, events, he conceived of his goal of increasing racial tension throughout the nation and seeking retribution for perceived wrongs that he believed african-americans have committed against white people. to carry out these twin goals of fanning racial flame and exacting revenge ruth further decided to seek out and murder african-americans because of there race. an essential elementan essential element of his plan was to find his victims inside of the church specifically an african-american church to ensure the greatest notoriety and attention. as alleged he set out the evening of june 17, 2015 to carry out this plan and drove to the emmanuel methodist episcopal church known as mother emmanuel.

his destination specifically because it was a historically african-american church of significance to the people of charleston, south carolina command the nation. he found his targets. welcomed by the ministers of the church he joined them in a bible study group. the parishioners had bibles. he had his 45 caliber glock pistol and he also had eight magazines loaded with hollowpoint bullets. while thewhile the parishioners were engaged in religious worship and bible study he drew his pistol and opened fire and ultimately killing nine church members. as you no the state of south carolina is also prosecuting ruth for the murders attempted murders, and firearms offenses. we commend the south carolina state authorities for the tremendous working

quick response. it is important to note south carolina does not have a hate crime statute and as a result the state charges do not reflect the alleged hate crime offenses presented in the federal indictment returned today. specifically the federal indictment returned today charges ruth with nine murders and three attempted murders under the hate crimes prevention act. this federal hate crimes law prohibits using a dangerous weapon because bodily injury or attempting to do so on the basis of race or color. it was enacted specifically to vindicate the unique harms caused by racially motivated violence. also charged with nine murders and three attempted murders under a 2nd federal hate crime statute that prohibits the use or threat of force to obstruct any persons free exercise of

religious belief. finally, a federal charge of multiple counts of using a firearm in the commission of racially motivated murders and attempted murders. hehe faces federal penalties, up to life imprisonment with the death penalty. no decision has been made on whether to seek the death penalty in this case. the department will follow usual protocol the thoroughly considered factual and legal issues relevant which we will necessarily involve counsel for the defendant. in addition consultation with the victims families is an important and vital part of the decision-making process. the family members of those killed and the survivors were informed of these federal charges earlier today.

i would note that this and but -- this indictment contains allegations and is not evidence of guilt. the department of justice with conflicting hate crimes investigation into the shooting. immediately following the shooting the experienced prosecutors in the us atty.'s office in south carolina along with attorneys from our civil rights division began working closely with the fbi atf state atf state and local law enforcement officials, including the south carolina law enforcement division the charleston police, and the sorcerer's office for the ninth circuit in south carolina and thoroughly investigating crimes. i would like to thank the many state and federal and local law enforcement officials for the dedication and hard work to ensure this was conducted thoroughly and expeditiously. i would also like to thank south carolina us attorney medals for his and his office is tremendous efforts on this case as well as the dedicated attorneys from the

department civil rights division. in particular, i would like to extend my thanks to charleston solicitor wilson for being a cooperative partner. we have strong have strong working relationships and look forward. thank you for your attention. [inaudible question] >> that has not been determined yet. both cases will proceed through the court system. we will work to reduce unnecessary burden for the family. [inaudible question] >> what factors go into deciding who goes 1st? >> there are any number of factors. willfactors. consider how the cases progress and essentially how the judges view the case. both cases are in there

early stages and have yet to have motions. itit is difficult to say how that we will impact the schedule. >> it seems to fit the definition of domestic terrorism. were those charges considered? >> as you know, they're is no specific domestic terrorism statute. however, hate crimes are the original domestic terrorism, and we feel the behavior alleged to have occurred is archetypal behavior that fits the federal hate crime -- hate crime statutes. we have a defendant alleged to have harbored discriminatory views toward african-americans to have sought out a house of worship particularly noteworthy because of age and significance and sought out african-american parishioners at worship implicating several hate crime statutes.

this is exactly the type of case that the statutes were conceived of the cover. racially motivated violence is the original domestic terrorism. >> if you look at the essence of the case the fact that these people are dead today because of there race could you speak to where we stand and what that says? >> i think this is obviously a tragic situation for a troubling situation as the allegations and indictment reflect on the mindset of this young man and his specific purpose to target individuals for death because of race but also to target individuals for death who are engaged in religious worship. we must rain vigilant. we certainly do not no much more about the defendant. the investigation is ongoing

the message that should be clear to this is that the federal government and our state partners are committed to investigating these matters fully and thoroughly >> the indictment that targeted mother emmanuel specifically because it was a historically african-american church how do you no that is why he chose that church as opposed to any african-american church? had you know the national significance of the church? >> i will not comment specifically on the evidence that will come forth at a triala trial except to note that we believe the evidence will support the allegation that the church was chosen because it was an old church, historic, and historically significant as one of the oldest african-american churches in

the nation and that he was looking for the type of church and the type of parishioners whose death would draw great notoriety for his religious -- for his racist views. >> i no in your remarks you use language because of their it am wondering to what extent must all other factors be precluded? everyone in the world, hates his mother gays. what impact does that have? >> hopefully we will not be receiving information like that. wherever you have the possibility of multiple motivations you also have the possibility of multiple charges. the charges here specifically allege racially motivated violence in the murder and attempted murder but also the federal hate crime statute that prohibits

using violence to essentially prevent anyone from exercising religion not tied to race. so we see here activity that supports allegations of more than one intent. with respect to issues that you raise about the defendant's state of mind kemal that we will be taken into consideration. i am not able to speculate now as to the impact. >> you suggested that this was a seven-month plan. can you elaborate a little bit about how detailed this plan was whether he made trips to the church prior to that night? >> well, thank you for the question. i am not able to go and how many months he

was planning. it was several months prior to the june 17 incident command i am not able to go into the evidence right now the show us action surrounding that. >> following up on ryan's issue, should they're be a federal domestic terrorism law? for your average person who sees the way people to live enforcement talk about different types of killings of what distinction should they make when they hear talk about a shooting in chattanooga does it matter and should they're be a domestic terrorism law? >> as to what laws should or should not come out i will not speculate at this time. as to the nature of the case you touch on the issue that people may feel that because we have such a strong emphasis on terrorism matter since 911 that when we talk about matters and do not use the terminology

somehow we don't consider those crimes is serious. nothing could be further from the truth. this type of crime in particular, racially motivated violence for just federal law was specifically enacted the cover is of great importance to the government. we have devoted considerable resources from the beginning of this case to make sure this interest was explored and that if the evidence supported it the allegations were brought because this is the archetype of the original domestic terrorism command sometimes people focus on terminology. they're has been a great focus on that type of case but it should in no way, and absolutely no way signify this particular murder or any federal crime is of a lesser significance. >> how we will you determine

whether or not he is a candidate for the death penalty? >> the department of justice has a process by which we consider death eligible defendants in determining whether or not to seek death penalty. it is a detailed and thorough review process that involves submissions from defense counsel, consultation with the victims families, and a review of all of the various factors we would utilize to seek the death penalty to determine whether or not we feel that we can prevail on this factors a trial. ultimately after this process at the us attorney's office level and also here in maine justice and ultimately it comes to my desk. as i've said before i want to be clear that no decision has been made as to whether or not to seek the penalty but we have an obligation to plate -- place the defendant on notice that the penalty is an option and allow his

counsel the time to prepare. >> can you talk about what your office is doing in conjunction with the fbi? >> as the director announced he has initiated a review into the procedures that unfortunately led to is missing the fact that mr. ruth had applied to purchase that done which is a matter ofa matter of great importance and is very disturbing and heartbreaking to all of us reviewing this matter. that is ongoing command i look forward to receiving the results. >> on a slightly different type you said you were looking at the case. can you expand? >> misbranded died in taxes while in police custody. that matter is under investigation by local

authorities. the fbi is monitoring that case command we are awaiting the results. >> talk a little bit about what you are views are on the planned parenthood videos. you received some letters congress. there is a applicable federal law. is that something you will open an investigation on? >> i am aware of those matters generally from the media. again we will review the information and determine what steps if any to take. >> i want to ask you. just switching gears can we expect charges from the department of justice?

>> an ongoing investigation and open manner, so i am not able to comment. what i will say is the department of justice as well as other federal agencies are actively involved in notifying everyone who is subjected to that breach and providing them with the necessary tools to protect the personal data. >> the families of the victims of south carolina your reaction to the difficult circumstances. >> from the beginning the families of the victims have provided an example to the country of which are graces. and faith look like. they are inspiration to us all. i do not no how many of us would be able to find that type of forgiveness so soon after such a terrible heartbreaking loss. and particular i thought

that was helpful for everyone watching was to see the families acknowledge that they were angry through the person who may taken there loved ones that were able to while still holding onto that anger movemoved to forgiveness. i thought that was an incredible lesson and message for all of us. >> it has been sometime now since your office in new york began the investigation into the death of eric garner. when can we expect a resolution? >> i cannot comment on the timing except to say that it is still active and ongoing. the eastern district of new york is moving ahead in a thorough and efficient manner. >> given that more people are killed by non-muslims extremists do you think you are properly organizing resources? >> we are tracking a number

of threats and that americans on us soil and abroad and certainly the death of anyone is a matter of great importance for us your. without commenting on how we are allocating resources we take our threat seriously whether they come from a foreign domestic terrorist organization by domestic religious organization or simply an individual who posts that's online. we take all those matters seriously and devote what we feel are the necessary resources to protect individuals who come under those threats. if we learn of the matter too late indicate there interest and bring the killers to justice. thank you all. >> the attorney general from earlier today in the nation's capitol looking live on the senate side where senators are wrapping up their briefing from two other members of the president's cabinet, secretary of state and

energy secretary briefing 1st house members and then senators on the iran nuclear deal. the two we will be back on capitol hill tomorrow to face the senate foreign relations committee. 10:00 a.m. eastern live coverage on c-span radio and c-span.org. thethe senate should be gaveling back and shortly. we expect them to resume consideration of the highway bill. for more about what happened on the house side and what may be ahead we show youhost part of this morning's washington journal and wait for the senate to gavel and. >> we are back with rice, republican tom rice sitting on the house transportation s infrastructure committee. the senate is trying to work through a six-year highway funding bill. current the housethe house passed a five-month extension. the current funding stream expires ne expires next weekxt.g tosee how it

plays out. how does this can result? >> a great question, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.n on american competitiveness and jobs, certainly infrastructure is one of the has main things that makes us competitive.lati how competitiveness hashe slipped relative to other15 years or countries. we need to work hard tothat. regain that. th one of theone of the ways we can do that is to continueanot to improve infrastructure. another sideline issue or closely related issue is the uncertainty that washingtonthe un creates with all thesewith all band-aid fixes.ess was one of the most troubling calls i got in my two and a jun half years ein congress was a call last june from south said i carolina sec. ofnd ito transportation who said,said to my understand the highway trust fund is going to expire in august. what does that mean? suppo my supposed to not take new not take an contracts?y i' cancel the contracts i have??

you can sit here and assure her that congress will do something. these days you can't rely on congress to do anything. alof these band-aid fixes the fda certainly something we we finally got out how the process of the band-aids. so i want to believe that uncertainty.t is i puti put forth a bill foraxes. revenue neutral, does notes raise taxes. it moves tax dollars from the general fund to the highway trust fund by raising the gas tax by $0.100 a which costs the average driver hundred $30 a year and gives a hundred 30 dollars a year tax credit. a >> you are h still spending money. >> revenue neutral. >> your tax credit.

>> it moves the money out of the general fund. it is still going to be they're. but we have been doing is transferring periodicallye genera money out. what i am trying to do ismoney create certainty so that when my secretary of transportation back home doesn't have to worry.? >> with that cover the gap? >> completely and create an extra $10 billion over the next six years. bo >> what have you heard from what leadership? d >> i do not no how receptivek? guest: my leadership is but i will re tell you, the uncertainty is as bad or worse than a lot of the other problems that that we face. we face. in my opinion it has been s dropping.

two years agoeedp they predicted they pr a ten year gdp growth. then i went down to 2.9%.ved these oblems now it's a 2.3%. a lot ofare four the .3 percent. a lot of the reason for that is because we have not solveis count these problems command there are four or five basic faces problems that this countryse o faces. if we could take them off the table would be at 4 percent. one of them is the highway trust fund. another is the security trust fund. immigration is another one. tax reform and the thing that bothers me about these things everyone agrees that they are problems. the president, congress, house, senate, republicans democrats, everybody talks about these things and no

one is offering solutions. i will start putting of solutions for them. >> talking about infrastructure and your communities. congress is to address this next week, current funding expires next week. the house passed another extension the 34th total by short-term fix. you are speaking out how house speaker john weiner and nancy pelosi came together. the senate majority leader has teamed up with democrats from california, senator barbara boxer to read what do you like what do you don't like? >> i have not seen this in a deal. i am open to any process that they may offer. i offered of my ideas. i want to see any ideas that anyone else has. we need the political

courage to deal with these four overhangs to our economy. if we can grow our economy at 4 percent call these kids coming out of college would not have such a hard time finding jobs. these people that have left the workforce and given up would come back in. you would see our economy flourish command it is entirely within the power of the washington political staff, if they only have the political we will to do it. it would be great if the president would take a leadership role. >> he said he has not seen the senate bill. it is over a thousand pages. filibustering a move to put it on the floor saying they want underrated. it will have to work through the weekend to try to get this deal. a six-year funding stream approved. the house passed a

five-month extension. that is our conversation with representative tom rice bill in new jersey, independent. >> good morning. all roads, bridges, tunnels, airports need repair. we have to raise the revenue to do those repairs no matter the cost and the revenue needs to be raised with no cuts to social programs. >> well, i here you. i take issue. if youif you look, our revenues are as high nominally as they have ever been for bringing in more dollars than we ever have. as a percentage of gdp which is the more accurate way to representative -- back your way to measure revenues, we are about our 40 year average. the problem is and spending

which is why my provision is revenue neutral. >> married in pennsylvania, democrat. >> you are full of baloney. we give so much money to corporate welfare. neither theneither the republicans or democrats want to be bothered with trying to get rid of those. we would have plenty of money for infrastructure. you people are all paid by corporationscommand you will not touch the loophole for tax breaks. >> take a look at this. top lawmakers in the white house are in the early stages of discussing ambitious overalls and how the us taxes multinational firms. part of an effort to find funding for a long-term highway bill. this is something being discussed. >> certainly. i am open to any ideas that anyone has.

i think that these short-term band-aid patches hold back our economy and a ludicrous. there has been talk about reassuring money held by multiple -- multinational corporations. there has been talk. everyone is looking for solutions other than raising revenue. the caller said i am paid by corporate interest which is absolute nonsense. i want to assure him that i am all in favor of tax reform and all in favor of our system of our tax code was written 50 60 years ago at the time it was competitive. today it is not. it hurts american business trying to create american jobs. it absolutely prevents companies from moving here from overseas because they

have to pay more taxes. our tax code is riddled with exemptions and deductions that do not make sense. everyone calls the loopholes some of them i would classify as the loophole. most of them were put they're for a good reason at times we needed to encourage energy production. accelerated depreciation exclusion for different types of products. there are reasons why we put preferences in the tax code. i would not classify all these things as loopholes. lower the tax rate get us down to the international norms and do away with the deductions and credits.

what i don't want to do is call the loopholes because these things were put in as a valid -- to encourage production of energy or other things that the country needed at the time. >> this is what the top lawmakers in the country of discussing. whether to eliminate adopt to prevent future abuses and whether to provide future taxes is. an overall could raise revenues for highways by imposing a one-time tax i corporate earnings. the question or comment. >> the question is this do we have a safety issue? that is one of the biggest things with transportation

the safety issue. the largest country in the world in reference to how we do business around the world but yet and still china take some money puts their transportation system in place and yet and still we cannot get it together in congress because there worried about who is up one or down one rather than argue protect the american public. >> well i agree that there is too much concerned about the next election and not enough about moving things forward which is why i put forth his proposal to provide permanent funding. >> john montana republican. >> congressman, i would like you to give a grade to these agencies for transportation epa board of education, irs.

why don't youwhy don't you guys take your hands out of the states, give the money back, or not let it get out of the states and solve the problem that way. that way youthat way you don't have to make these tough decisions the cost is money? >> believe this now.we leave this now. the senate is returning from a security briefing with the secretary of state. back to work on the highway funding measure. live coverage here on c-span2.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to the motion to reconsider vote number 250 the vote by which cloture was not ip voked on the motion to road to h.r. 22. the presiding officer: question is on the motion to proceed.

all those in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed. mr. mcconnell: i move to reconsider the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to h.r. 22. the presiding officer: all those in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 19, h.r. 22, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 and so forth. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense

of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to h.r. 22, hire more heroes act shall be brought to a close upon reconsideration? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote: